Chhattisgarh High Court Rules No Hearing Right for Prospective Accused Before FIR Registration
In a significant legal ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has declared that a person who is likely to be made an accused in a criminal case possesses no inherent right to be heard prior to the initiation of formal criminal proceedings or the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). This landmark judgment was delivered by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru on Wednesday while dismissing a writ petition filed by Dr. Vivek Choudhary, a senior medical officer.
Case Background: Alleged Corruption in Medical Equipment Procurement
The petition challenged a 2021 inquiry report and a subsequent government recommendation to lodge an FIR against Dr. Choudhary in connection with alleged corruption and misappropriation of public funds. The case revolves around the purchase and installation of a PET-CT Scan and Gamma Camera at the state-run Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital in Raipur, with alleged irregularities amounting to approximately Rs 18.45 crore.
Dr. Choudhary, who served as the then joint director-cum-superintendent of the hospital, argued that the recommendation for an FIR was arbitrary and lacked a substantive material basis. His legal counsel contended that his role was strictly limited to providing technical specifications, while the actual procurement process was managed by the Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited.
Key Arguments and Court Observations
Petitioner's Claims: Dr. Choudhary asserted that the six-member internal inquiry committee, which recorded adverse findings against him alleging procedural lapses and improper financial sanctions, did not afford him an opportunity to be heard. This, he claimed, constituted a violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice.
State's Opposition: The state counsel robustly opposed the petition, emphasizing that the inquiry committee was merely a preliminary fact-finding body. They argued that the government retains independent authority to investigate cognizable offences, and a prospective accused cannot legally demand a hearing before an investigation commences.
Court's Findings: Justice Guru noted that Dr. Choudhary was actively involved in critical stages of the procurement process, including furnishing estimated costs and technical specifications. The court underscored that the inquiry committee was designed to assist the government preliminarily and did not determine final legal liabilities.
Legal Rationale and Implications
In his ruling, Justice Guru stated, "A prospective accused has no vested right to be heard prior to initiation of criminal proceedings as the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) does not provide for a right of hearing before the registration of an FIR." The court further clarified that adherence to the principles of natural justice is not mandatory during the initial reporting stage of a criminal offence.
The judgment also highlighted that courts should exercise restraint and be slow to interfere with the investigative powers of agencies at the threshold. This decision reinforces the procedural framework where criminal investigations can proceed without pre-registration hearings for those potentially implicated, ensuring that investigative processes are not unduly hampered by preliminary legal challenges.
This ruling sets a crucial precedent in criminal jurisprudence, balancing the rights of individuals against the state's duty to investigate offences efficiently and without procedural delays.
