Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 12601

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Vevek Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPC No. 4421 of 2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manoj Paranjpe, Kabeer Kalwant
For the Respondents: Praveen Das, Anand Gupta, Raghvendra Pradhan

A prospective accused has no vested right to a pre-decisional hearing before the registration of an FIR, and courts should not interfere with preliminary fact-finding inquiries or investigations into cognizable offences in exercise of writ jurisdiction unless extraordinary circumstances exist.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 226 and 227 - Writ jurisdiction - Challenge to inquiry report and recommendation for registration of FIR - Whether principles of natural justice apply at the stage of a fact-finding preliminary inquiry - Principles of natural justice not applicable at the stage of reporting a criminal offence - Prospective accused has no vested right to hearing prior to registration of FIR.

(B) Writ Petition - Maintainability - Seeking interference in investigation - Courts should not stall investigation at the initial stage unless the case falls under exceptional circumstances - Whether fact-finding committee report determines civil rights - Report recommendatory in nature and does not impose penal consequences - Prayer for quashing the report rejected.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was the Joint Director-cum-Superintendent at a hospital and was involved in the procurement process for PET-CT and Gamma Camera machines. A six-member internal committee was constituted to inquire into irregularities during procurement, which recommended registration of an FIR. The petitioner challenged the inquiry report and the recommendation letter, alleging lack of opportunity of hearing and perversity of findings.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner was actively involved in providing technical specifications and budgetary estimates, which formed the basis of the procurement. The inquiry report was merely a preliminary fact-finding exercise and not an adjudicatory proceeding; therefore, strict adherence to natural justice was not required. The court refused to interfere with the decision to investigate, holding that interference would prematurely stifle the criminal justice process.

Issues: (1) Whether the inquiry report should be quashed due to violation of natural justice principles. (2) Whether a prospective accused has a right to be heard before the registration of an FIR.

Ratio Decidendi: A fact-finding inquiry that is recommendatory in nature does not trigger the requirement of pre-decisional hearing as it does not determine legal liabilities or impose penalties. Investigative powers of the State in cognizable offences should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction at a preliminary stage.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to preliminary inquiry and fir registration based on procedural irregularities. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties' contentions regarding the scope of natural justice and the right to a hearing. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's findings on the petitioner's involvement in procurement impropriety. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. no right to pre-decisional hearing for a prospective accused in criminal investigations. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. dismissal of petition challenging preliminary inquiry report. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)

C A V ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the impugned letter bearing No. F-10-36/2021/55 dated 30-08-2021 (Annexure-P/1) (so far as it relates to the petitioner), whereby Respondent No. 2 has recommended registration of an FIR against the erring personnel in connection with the alleged corruption and misappropriation of government/public exchequer relating to the purchase and installation of PET CT Scan and Gamma Camera at Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur. The petitioner has also challenged the inquiry report dated 20-07-2021 submitted by a six-member committee, wherein adverse findings have been recorded against the petitioner without providing any opportunity of hearing.

2. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs in the Writ Petition:-

(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to produce entire records pertaining to the present case for its kind perusal.

(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition and issue an appropriate writ/order/direction quashing the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner and also may kindly be pleased to quash report dated 20-07-2021 being illegal/erroneous and without jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to further quash all consequential orders/actions including the order dated 30-08-2021. (Annexure P/1) The Respondents may further be directed not to take any further action in pursuance to the report dated 20-07-2021 (Annexure P/1) as being untenable in the eyes of law.

(iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to Respondent authorities to conduct fresh inquiry and take appropriate decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and affording an opportunity to participate in the said inquiry.

(iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to Respondent authorities to pay adequate compensation to the Petitioner for tarnishing his image in the society.

(v) That, any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper, and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the ends of justice & equity.

(vi) That, the cost of the petition may kindly also be awarded to the petitioners.”

3. From the pleadings and documents annexed with the petition, it is apparent that the petitioner was posted as Joint Director-cum-Superintendent at Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, and was associated with the process relating to the purchase and installation of PET CT Scan and Gamma Camera for the said Hospital. On 8.3.2018 (Annexure - P/4) a turnkey proposal of setting up state of art Nuclear Medicine Diagnostic Centre was made by M/s Millicurie Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai to the Hon’ble Minister, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Chhattisgarh, which was forwarded by the Hon’ble Minister to the petitioner on 10-03-2018 for his opinion, and thereafter the petitioner submitted his opinion regarding the mode of purchase on 16-03-2018 (Annexure-P/5) and also opined that it should be under PPP (Public-Private Partnership) mode. On

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 12601

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURBibhu Datta Guru, JVevek Choudhary – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentWPC No. 4421 of 2021

A prospective accused has no vested right to a pre-decisional hearing before the registration of an FIR, and courts should not interfere with preliminary fact-finding inquiries or investigations into cognizable offences in exercise of writ jurisdiction unless extraordinary circumstances exist.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Vevek Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPC No. 4421 of 2021