Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuveer Singh Chandel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2020
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.7304/2020
Raghuveer Singh Chandel vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Gwalior, Dated : 07/08/2020
Shri D.P. Singh, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Additional Advocate General for the
State.
Heard through video conferencing.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking the following reliefs:
1. That, the impugned order Annexure P/1
dated 21.6.2017 and the enquiry report conducted
by 5 members committee Annexure P-5 and
consequence thereto FIR Annexure P-6 may
kindly be quashed.
2. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case
may kindly be granted to the petitioner.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that he was a
Class-III employee who has retired. On the basis of an ex parte
preliminary enquiry report, the Collector has directed the authorities
to lodge the FIR. It is further submitted that the persons who are
responsible for the scam have been exonerated and the petitioner has
been made an escape goat of the entire scam and, accordingly, prays
for quashment of the order dated 21.6.2017 as well as the FIR in
Crime No.107/2017 registered at Police Station Lahar, District
Bhind.
2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.7304/2020
Raghuveer Singh Chandel vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioner.
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, 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.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge (alok) ALOK KUMAR 2020.08.07 18:30:54 +05'30'