Prior adversarial hearing is not required before directing FIR registration for investigation.

The connected writ petitions arose from alleged irregularities in the functioning and transactions of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Shahgarh, District Sagar, particularly during June 2019 under the Jai Kisan Samraddhi Yojna, 2019.

The petitioners comprised private traders/proprietors and Mandi employees.

They challenged communications dated 25.06.2020, 26.06.2020 and 06.07.2020, by which the authorities relied on an enquiry report dated 26.02.2020 and directed that an FIR be registered regarding alleged irregularities in wheat transactions and Mandi records.

The alleged irregularities included use of manual entry slips instead of electronic slips, recording of two-wheelers in entry documents, discrepancies between quantities purchased and sold, defective or non-functioning CCTV systems, delayed uploading of transaction data, and overwriting or other deficiencies in official records.

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

Whether the disputed factual questions concerning Mandi records, electronic entries, vehicle details, CCTV systems, quantities of produce and the individual role of the petitioners could be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226?

Whether the enquiry material disclosed circumstances warranting investigation into possible cognizable offences, or whether the allegations were so legally deficient as to justify quashing at the threshold?

Whether the impugned communications amounted to a final finding of guilt or determination of criminal liability against the petitioners?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and ordinarily should not be used to conduct a roving evidentiary enquiry or interfere with a criminal investigation at its inception.

It applied the principles of natural justice and fairness in State action, including the principle relied upon from M.J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 6 SCC 289, while holding that the content and applicability of natural justice depend upon the nature and stage of the proceeding.

The Court further held that a direction to register an FIR is not a final adjudication of guilt; investigation is intended to determine whether an offence was committed, whether the allegations are true and what individual role, if any, is attributable to the persons concerned.

Where the allegations and supporting material are not patently incapable of disclosing a cognizable offence, the High Court should ordinarily allow investigation to proceed and should not undertake pre-investigation factual adjudication.

The Court held that the impugned communications did not themselves constitute an FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance or determination of criminal liability; they merely placed the enquiry material before the police for investigation.

Consequently, the absence of a prior adversarial hearing did not invalidate the communications at this preliminary stage.

The competing claims regarding extraordinary transaction volume, inadvertent errors in vehicle numbers, use of manual slips, defective CCTV equipment, delayed online entries and responsibility for discrepancies required examination of original records, electronic data, entry slips, vehicle details, statements and other evidence, which could not properly be undertaken in writ jurisdiction.

Since the enquiry report identified specific irregularities in official records and agricultural transactions, the allegations could not be held, without investigation, to be wholly incapable of constituting cognizable offences.

The Court also rejected the contention that the communications amounted to findings of guilt, observing that investigation could either exonerate particular persons or result in further proceedings in accordance with law.

No patent lack of jurisdiction, manifest arbitrariness or complete absence of material was established.

It declined to quash the communications dated 25.06.2020, 26.06.2020 and 06.07.2020, holding that no exceptional circumstance existed for interference under Article 226.

Any interim orders operating in the petitions were vacated, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.