IMPORTANT POINT
A suspect has no right to a pre-registration hearing before an FIR is lodged, as established by the Criminal Procedure Code.

ORDER :

This application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No. 53/2021 registered at Police Station Mohangarh, District Tikamgarh for offence under sections 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act.

2. It is the case of applicant that he is working as Assistant Salesman in Government Fair Price Shop Dargaykhurd, District Tikamgarh. On 12-9-2020, Tehsildar Digora conducted a spot inspection and certain complaints were made of villagers that applicant is not distributing ration regularly and he does not open the shop on time. It was also found by the Tehsildar that the applicant had kept the ration of two months in another store and accordingly, the shop was sealed and report was sent to the SDO. On the report lodged by Junior Supply Officer on 27-2-2021, offence has been registered at Police Station Mohangarh, District Tikamgarh.

3. Challenging the said FIR, it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that FIR was lodged without giving any opportunity of hearing to the applicant. Although the applicant was shown to be the Assistant Salesman but there is no such post in the Society. Applicant is not involved in the said crime and FIR has been lodged on the false grounds.

4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the applicant.

5. So far as the question of grant of opportunity prior to lodging of FIR is concerned, it is well established principle of law that suspect has no right of pre-audience before lodging of FIR.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. W. N. Chadha, reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260 has held that if prior notice and an opportunity of hearing are to be given to an accused in every criminal case before taking any action against him, such a procedure would frustrate the proceedings, obstruct the taking of prompt action as law demands, defeat the ends of justice and make the provisions of law relating to investigation lifeless, absurd and self-defeating. Further, the scheme of the relevant statutory provisions relating to the procedure of investigation does not attract such a course in the absence of any statutory obligation to the contrary.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Narender G. Goel vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 65 has held as under :—

“11. It is well settled that the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation. The prosecution will however have to prove its case at the trial when the accused will have full opportunity to rebut/question the validity and authenticity of the prosecution case. In Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj vs. State of A. P., (1999) 5 SCC 740 = 1999 SCC (Cri) 1047 this Court observed : (SCC p. 743, para 11)

“11. … There is nothing in section 173(8) to suggest that the Court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on the Court would only result in encumbering the Court with the burden of searching for all the potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard.”

12. The accused can certainly avail himself of an opportunity to cross-examine and/or otherwise controvert the authenticity, admissibility or legal significance of material evidence gathered in the course of further investigations. Further in light of the views expressed by the investigating officer in his affidavit before the High Court, it is apparent that the investigating authorities would inevitably have conducted further investigation with the aid of CFS under section 173(8) of the Code.”

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Anju Chaudhary vs. State of U. P. and another, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 384 has held as under :—

“30. Section 154 of the Code places an unequivocal duty upon the police officer-in-charge of a police station to register FIR upon receipt of the information that a cognizable offence has been committed. It hardly gives any discretion to the said police officer. The genesis