2020 (1) TMI 1469 - HC - Indian Laws

Prospective Accused Not Parties in FIR Writ Petitions

The Full Bench ruled that prospective accused persons are not necessary or proper parties in writ petitions under Article 226/227 seeking directions for ... Demand of dowry - Seeking direction for registration of FIR and investigation against the accused persons - cognizable offence(s) - right of accused of hearing before registration of FIR - HELD THAT:- In UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS W.N. CHADHA [1992 (12) TMI 216 - SUPREME COURT], popularly known as 'Bofors Case', the High Court quashed the orders of the criminal Court who had issued letter rogatory against the person, on the ground that the Special Judge has not complied with the principle of audi alteram partem - the Supreme Court in W.N. Chadha has also considered the application of rule of audi alteram partem at the stage of registration of FIR in paras 76 to 90 of the report. It is an absolutely settled legal position that a prospective accused has no right of hearing before registration of FIR and investigation by the police officer or before the Court including the writ Court, therefore, in a writ petition seeking direction for registration of FIR and investigation into a cognizable offence, the prospective accused is neither necessary nor a proper party. Since only the stated question was referred to the Full Bench the file of the writ petition is sent back for listing the same before the appropriate Bench having the roster - Reference is answered accordingly. Issues Involved:1. Whether accused persons are necessary or proper parties in a writ petition under Article 226/227 seeking directions for FIR registration and investigation.2. The statutory obligation of the police to register FIR and investigate cognizable offences.3. The right of the accused to be heard at the stage of FIR registration and investigation.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Necessary or Proper Parties in Writ PetitionThe Full Bench addressed whether accused persons must be noticed and heard in writ petitions under Article 226/227 seeking FIR registration and investigation. The writ petition sought directions for registering an FIR and arresting individuals for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC. The court examined precedents, including Supreme Court judgments in *Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India* and *Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, and a Division Bench decision in *Arun Singh Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh*. These cases emphasized that writ petitions should not be disposed of without hearing persons vitally affected by the judgment. However, the court noted that the issue at the FIR registration stage is distinct from situations where vested or statutory rights are at risk. The court concluded that prospective accused are not entitled to be heard at the investigation stage, which differs from prosecution.Issue 2: Statutory Obligation to Register FIRThe court reiterated the statutory obligation of the police to register FIRs and investigate cognizable offences as outlined in Chapter XII (Sections 154-176) of the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court's decision in *Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh* was cited, highlighting that FIR registration under Section 154 and arrest under Section 41 are distinct processes. The court emphasized that the mandatory registration of FIR is required when information discloses a cognizable offence, irrespective of the information's credibility or genuineness. The police can close a matter before or after investigation if no sufficient grounds exist.Issue 3: Right of Accused to be HeardThe court extensively reviewed Supreme Court judgments addressing whether an accused has the right to be heard at the FIR registration and investigation stages. In *W.N. Chadha* (Bofors Case), the Supreme Court clarified that the scheme of Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. does not confer a right of prior notice or hearing to an accused during the investigation. The court also referenced *Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra*, *Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State of Karnataka*, and *Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, all affirming that the accused has no right to a pre-registration hearing. The principle of audi alteram partem (right to be heard) is excluded at this stage to prevent frustration of the investigation process.The court concluded that the legal position is settled: a prospective accused has no right to be heard before FIR registration and investigation. Consequently, in writ petitions seeking such directions, the prospective accused is neither a necessary nor a proper party.Conclusion:The Full Bench answered the reference by affirming that prospective accused persons are not necessary or proper parties in writ petitions under Article 226/227 seeking directions for FIR registration and investigation. The matter was sent back to the appropriate Bench for further proceedings.