A direction to register an FIR is not a guilt determination warranting pre-investigation writ interference.

The connected writ petitions were filed by traders/proprietors and employees associated with Krishi Upaj Mandi, Shahgarh, District Sagar, challenging communications/orders dated 25.06.2020, 26.06.2020 and 06.07.2020.

The communications were issued following an enquiry into alleged irregularities in wheat and other agricultural-produce transactions during the Jai Kisan Samraddhi Yojna, 2019, including use of manual entry slips, incorrect vehicle details, discrepancies between quantities purchased and sold, delayed online uploads, deficiencies in CCTV surveillance and alleged manipulation of records.

The petitioners contended that they had not been given an effective opportunity of hearing and that the authorities had attributed criminal culpability to them without determining their individual roles.

The respondents maintained that the impugned communications merely directed the police to register an FIR and investigate the allegations, did not themselves constitute an FIR or determination of guilt, and were based on an enquiry report dated 26.02.2020.

1. Whether the administrative communications directing registration of an FIR and investigation could be quashed under Article 226 merely because the petitioners were not given a prior adversarial hearing?

2. Whether the disputed factual questions concerning the Mandi transactions, records, electronic entries, vehicle details, CCTV systems and individual roles could be adjudicated in writ proceedings before investigation?

3. Whether the enquiry material disclosed such a complete absence of an offence, lack of jurisdiction or manifest arbitrariness as to warrant interference with the proposed criminal investigation?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, under which writ jurisdiction is extraordinary and discretionary and is ordinarily not exercised to conduct a roving evidentiary enquiry or to obstruct criminal investigation at its inception.

It applied the principle that an FIR or direction for investigation is not a determination of guilt; the purpose of investigation is to ascertain whether a cognizable offence was committed and to determine the role, if any, of the persons concerned.

The Court further held that the principles of natural justice must be applied according to the nature and stage of the proceedings and that a prior adversarial hearing is not automatically required before registration or investigation of a criminal case.

Relying on M.J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 6 SCC 289, the Court recognised that State action must be fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary, while clarifying that the decision’s procedural requirements depend on its context.

The Court distinguished the impugned communications from an FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance or adjudication of criminal liability.

Since the communications merely directed that the allegations be placed before the police for investigation, the petitioners’ absence of a prior adversarial hearing did not, by itself, invalidate them.

The competing explanations—such as extraordinary transaction volumes, inadvertent errors in vehicle numbers, defective CCTV equipment, use of manual slips and lack of control over Mandi systems—required examination of original records, electronic data, entry slips, vehicle details, portal records, CCTV material and witness statements.

These were disputed questions of fact unsuitable for determination under Article 226.

The enquiry report dated 26.02.2020 provided material warranting investigation into the alleged discrepancies.

The Court held that the allegations were not so inherently incapable of constituting an offence that investigation could be interdicted at the threshold.

The fact that no FIR had been registered at the relevant stage also made the petitions essentially preventive in nature.

The Court declined to presume that the investigating agency would act unlawfully or that the petitioners would necessarily be prosecuted, observing that the agency must proceed according to law and assess the individual role of each person.

Accordingly, all connected writ petitions—including W.P. Nos. 10305/2020, 10313/2020, 9843/2020, 9261/2020, 9830/2020, 9832/2020, 9833/2020, 9838/2020, 10310/2020, 10314/2020, 10315/2020, 10319/2020, 10320/2020, 10322/2020, 10324/2020, 10327/2020, 10328/2020 and 10329/2020—were dismissed.

Any interim orders stood vacated and all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.