The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that an accused does not have the right to be heard before an FIR is filed. Therefore, an FIR cannot be annulled on the basis that the accused was not given an opportunity to be heard prior to its registration.

A bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia made this observation while dismissing a petition filed by Abhishek Pandey, who challenged two FIRs lodged against him for allegedly forcibly entering a school and abusing the staff.

The petitioner-accused argued that the police should have conducted a preliminary inquiry before registering the offence and that he was entitled to a hearing prior to the registration of the offence.

During the hearing, the Court referred to a 2014 Supreme Court ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP to assert that while holding a preliminary inquiry is desirable, an FIR cannot be quashed on the grounds of not conducting such an inquiry.

The Court also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Anr. vs. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H. Vijayalakshmi and Anr. (LL 2021 SC 551), which held that a preliminary inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation in cases of corruption is not mandatory.

In the 2021 case, the Supreme Court, while referring to various decisions, including the Constitution Bench's ruling in Lalita Kumari (supra), observed that they do not mandate a preliminary inquiry before the registration of an FIR in corruption cases. It stated that an FIR will not be invalidated due to the absence of a preliminary inquiry. The Court added that the purpose of the Lalita Kumari ruling, which noted the value of a preliminary inquiry in corruption cases, was not to grant a right to the accused but to ensure that the legal process is not abused to target public servants.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's first contention that a preliminary inquiry into the correctness of the allegations should have been conducted before registering an offence, stating that this argument is fundamentally misconceived. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had admitted to being at the school on the day of the alleged incident in his capacity as a student leader. When the Court asked the petitioner to justify whether a self-proclaimed student leader has the right to enter a school, he was unable to provide any legal basis permitting such unauthorized entry.

Thus, his plea was rejected.

Case Title - Abhishek Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others