Prospective accused has no right to be heard before registration of an FIR or during preliminary fact-finding inquiries.

The petitioner, serving as Joint Director-cum-Superintendent at Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, was involved in the procurement process for a PET CT Scan and Gamma Camera

Following a proposal from a private entity, the petitioner provided technical specifications and estimated the costs at ₹12 crore and ₹8 crore, respectively, while noting available budget heads

Subsequently, the Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited (Respondent No. 5) executed the tender process

Upon allegations of financial irregularities totaling approximately ₹18.45 crores, the State Government constituted a six-member fact-finding committee

The committee’s report, dated 20-07-2021, noted procedural lapses, including a lack of prior administrative and financial sanctions

Based on this report, Respondent No. 2 issued a letter on 30-08-2021 recommending the registration of an FIR against erring personnel, including the petitioner

The petitioner challenged the inquiry report and the recommendation letter via a writ petition under Article 226/227, alleging a violation of natural justice and lack of personal involvement in the decision-making process

1. Whether the inquiry report and subsequent recommendation for FIR registration are liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice for lack of a formal hearing

2. Whether a prospective accused possesses a vested legal right to be heard during a preliminary fact-finding inquiry or prior to the registration of an FIR

The Court applied the principles of judicial review under Article 226/227, noting that interference is limited to instances of procedural illegality or findings based on no evidence

It relied on the doctrine established in State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal (2023), which clarifies that principles of natural justice do not apply at the stage of reporting a criminal offence

The Court further cited Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Dhanjay Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, affirming that the Code of Criminal Procedure (now BNSS) does not provide a right of hearing to a prospective accused before the registration of an FIR

Finally, it applied M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which cautions against stalling criminal investigations at the threshold

The Court observed that the petitioner was not a passive participant but had actively facilitated the procurement by providing technical specifications and financial estimates that formed the basis of the tender

Regarding the alleged violation of natural justice, the Court held that the inquiry committee was merely a "fact-finding body" intended to assist the Government in reaching a prima facie satisfaction, rather than an adjudicatory body determining final civil rights or liabilities

The Court reasoned that since the inquiry report was recommendatory and did not inherently impose a penalty, strict adherence to audi alteram partem was unnecessary at that stage

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that granting a pre-decisional hearing to every prospective accused would frustrate prompt legal action and defeat the ends of justice

The petitioner’s defense—that his role was limited—was deemed a matter of merit to be determined during the investigation or trial, not in a writ proceeding

The Court concluded that the inquiry report disclosed prima facie irregularities involving substantial public funds, justifying further investigation

The Court declined to interfere with the preliminary report or the recommendation letter, as such interference would prematurely stifle the investigation

The interim order previously granted was vacated