Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuveer Singh Chandel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 September, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.A. No.816/2020
(Raghuveer Singh Chandel vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
Gwalior, Dated: 14/9/2020
Shri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for
the respondents/State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.
This writ appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed against the order dated 07/8/2020 passed by learned Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 7304/2020.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has submitted that ex-parte enquiry was conducted by a committee comprising of 5 persons and respondent No. 3 - Collector himself had directed to lodge FIR against the present appellant without conducting any fact-finding enquiry and as a consequence thereto, an FIR has been lodged by Police Station Lahar, District Bhind.
3. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the order impugned dated 07/8/2020 passed in writ petition No. 7304/2020 suffers from surmises and conjectures and is based on perverse finding as learned Writ Court overlooked the material aspect and the order - annexure P-1, which was issued by the Collector directing respondent No. 6 for lodging FIR against the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.A. No.816/2020 (Raghuveer Singh Chandel vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) appellant/petitioner, without affording opportunity of hearing and without following principles of natural justice and as a consequence thereto, FIR has been lodged. As principles of natural justice were not followed, hence, learned counsel for the appellant prays for allowing this writ appeal and for setting aside the order impugned.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State has opposed the submissions and submitted that the learned Writ Court has rightly passed the order impugned and no interference is warranted. Hence, prayed to reject the writ appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. Learned Writ Court has disposed of W.P. No. 7304/2020 in following terms:-
"The FIR in question was lodged in the year 2017. Whether the petitioner alone was responsible for the misappropriation or some more persons are responsible is not dependent upon the names of the accused disclosed in the FIR. During the investigation, if the police finds that some more persons are involved in the commission of offence, then they can always be impleaded as an accused. Furthermore, the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge in exercise of powers under Section 190 or 193,/319 of Cr.P.C. can also summon the additional accused persons. Since it is well established principle of law that the suspect has no right of audience prior to the registration of the FIR, therefore, 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.A. No.816/2020 (Raghuveer Singh Chandel vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for quashment of the FIR only on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner in a preliminary enquiry conducted by the respondents.
As the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offence, therefore, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed."
7. On perusal of record, it is apparent that the FIR in question was lodged in the year 2017 by holding the present appellant/petitioner responsible for misappropriation along with some other persons.
8. Section 154 of CrPC runs as under:-
"154. Information in cognizable cases. - (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf;
[Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer:
Provided further that-
(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354-A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.A. No.816/2020 (Raghuveer Singh Chandel vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person's choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;
(b) the recording of such information shall be videographed;
(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-Section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.] (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-
section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence."
9. Section 154 of CrPC makes provision with regard to registration of FIR. As per this section, when any information with regard to commission of cognizable offence is received, then the FIR can be registered. There is no provision in respect of providing opportunity of hearing to the accused against whom FIR is going to be registered.
10. It is also well settled principle of law that a suspect has no right of audience at the stage of registration of FIR. 5
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.A. No.816/2020 (Raghuveer Singh Chandel vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by learned Writ Court does not call for any interference.
12. Accordingly, the present writ appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(Sheel Nagu) (Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
Judge Judge
AKS
ALOK KUMAR
2020.09.15
12:05:08
-07'00'
11.0.8