No Pre-Audience Right Before FIR; Parallel Departmental & Criminal Probes Valid: Madhya Pradesh HC - 2025-05-12

No Right to Prior Hearing Before FIR, Concurrent Departmental Probe Permissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Gwalior , MP – The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has reiterated that an accused individual does not possess a right to a pre-audience or prior hearing before the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). The Court also affirmed the settled legal position that departmental enquiries and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously against an individual.

The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice G. S.Ahluwalia on May 8, 2025, in the case of Hariram Ahirwar and Others vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Writ Petition No. 14899 of 2025). The petitioners had sought the quashing of orders dated April 3, 2025, and April 4, 2025, which directed the initiation of a departmental enquiry and the lodging of an FIR against them, respectively.

Case Background: Allegations of Financial Irregularity

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Ravindra Kumar Choubey , B.A.C., Janpad Education Centre, Chanderi, alleging financial irregularities in grants paid to a government school. Following this complaint, the respondent authorities issued a show-cause notice to the petitioners on December 10, 2024, to which they submitted a reply.

Subsequently, on April 3, 2025, Respondent No. 2 directed the initiation of a departmental enquiry. A day later, on April 4, 2025, the District Project Coordinator issued a complaint to the Station House Officer (S.H.O.), Police Station Chanderi, District Ashoknagar, for the registration of an FIR.

Petitioners' Arguments

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Mr. Deepak Shrivastav , challenged these actions on three primary grounds: 1. The FIR was directed to be lodged without considering the reply they had submitted to the show-cause notice. 2. The registration of an FIR was unwarranted since a departmental enquiry was already in contemplation. 3. They were not provided an opportunity for a pre-audience (a hearing) before the direction to register the FIR was issued.

The State, represented by Government Advocate Mr. Jitesh Sharma, vehemently opposed the petition.

Court's Analysis of Legal Precedents

Justice Ahluwalia extensively examined established legal principles and Supreme Court precedents to address the two main legal questions arising from the petition.

1. No Right of Pre-Audience Before FIR Registration

The Court firmly held that the question of whether a suspect has a right to be heard before an FIR is registered is "no more res-integra" (no longer a new or undecided issue). Citing landmark Supreme Court judgments, including:

* Romila Thapar and others vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 753 : This case reiterated that accused persons do not have a say in the choice of investigating agency or the manner of investigation.

* Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat (2014) 4 SCC 626 : The Apex Court held that providing a prior hearing to a proposed accused 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 the investigation lifeless, absurd and self defeating."

The High Court concluded, "Thus, it is clear that the suspect has no right of pre-audience before registration of FIR."

2. Simultaneous Departmental and Criminal Proceedings

Addressing the petitioners' argument against concurrent proceedings, the Court again found the issue to be well-settled. Key Supreme Court rulings referenced included:

* Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (Dead) Through LRs Vs. Union of India and others (2012) 13 SCC 142 : This judgment established that there is no legal bar to simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings, except in specific situations where the defence in the criminal case might be prejudiced due to complex questions of fact and law common to both.

* Shashi Bhushan Prasad v. CISF (2019) 7 SCC 797 : This case highlighted that departmental enquiries and criminal trials operate in different fields with different objectives, standards of proof, and rules of evidence. Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically absolve an individual from departmental action.

* Depot Manager, A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya (1997) 2 SCC 699 : The Supreme Court noted that departmental enquiries aim to maintain service discipline and efficiency, while criminal prosecutions address offences against society.

Based on these precedents, Justice Ahluwalia affirmed, "Thus, it is clear that the departmental enquiry as well as criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously." The Court also noted the petitioners' submission that "merely because the departmental enquiry is under contemplation, the FIR cannot be lodged," implicitly rejecting this as a valid ground to quash the FIR, especially when no departmental charge-sheet had even been issued.

Decision: Petition Dismissed

Considering the "totality of the facts and circumstances of the case," the serious allegations of financial irregularities, and the established legal position on the absence of a right to pre-audience before an FIR, the High Court found no merit in the petition.

"Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, when there are serious allegations of financial irregularities and in absence of any right of pre-audience, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complaint made by District Education Centre, Ashoknagar on 04.04.2025 to the S.H.O. Police Station - Chanderi, District - Ashoknagar cannot be quashed," the Court ordered.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Implications

This judgment reinforces the powers of authorities to initiate both criminal investigations and internal disciplinary actions concurrently when faced with allegations of misconduct that may also constitute criminal offences. It serves as a reminder that the rights of an accused at the pre-investigation stage, particularly concerning a say in the initiation of an FIR or the choice of investigative process, are limited under Indian law.