The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a writ petition filed by a senior medical official seeking to quash an inquiry report and a recommendation for the registration of an FIR regarding alleged corruption in the procurement of medical equipment. The court held that a prospective accused has no vested right to a hearing prior to the initiation of criminal proceedings, as the procedural law does not provide for such a right before an FIR is registered.
Background
The petitioner, Dr. Vevek Choudhary, who served as Joint Director-cum-Superintendent at Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, challenged a letter dated August 30, 2021, issued by the Secretary of the Department of Medical Education. The letter recommended registering an FIR against “erring personnel” following an inquiry into alleged misappropriation of public funds during the purchase and installation of a PET CT Scan and Gamma Camera at the hospital.
The procurement process, involving approximately ₹18.45 crores, began in 2018. Following reports of irregularities, the State Government constituted a six-member internal committee to conduct a fact-finding inquiry. The committee’s report, dated July 20, 2021, recorded adverse findings against the petitioner, leading to the recommendation for criminal investigation.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: Represented by Senior Advocate Manoj Paranjpe, the petitioner argued that the impugned recommendation was illegal and lacked a material basis. He contended that his role was limited to providing technical specifications and opinions as directed by the Health Minister and that he had no decision-making power regarding budgetary sanctions or the tendering process.
The petitioner further argued that the inquiry committee violated the principles of natural justice by recording findings against him without providing an opportunity for a hearing. Citing B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, the petitioner’s counsel maintained that the court should interfere when findings are based on “no evidence” or reached in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice.
State’s Submissions: The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Praveen Das, countered that the petition was misconceived. It was argued that the committee was a “fact-finding body” and not an adjudicatory one; therefore, a formal hearing was not required. The State emphasized that the government has an “independent and inviolable power” to conduct investigations into cognizable offences. Relying on State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal, the State argued that the jurisprudence of criminal prosecution does not recognize a right of hearing for a prospective accused before an FIR is lodged.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, presiding over the case, observed that the records indicated the petitioner was “actively involved at crucial stages of the procurement process.” The court noted that the petitioner’s technical inputs and estimated valuations formed the basis for financial and administrative decisions, reflecting an “active participation in the decision-making chain.”
On the issue of natural justice, the Court stated:
“It is well settled that in the case of a preliminary or fact-finding inquiry, strict adherence to the principles of natural justice is not required. The requirement of affording a detailed opportunity of hearing arises at a stage where the authority proposes to take a final decision affecting the civil rights of a person or to impose any penalty.”
The Court further observed that the inquiry report was “merely recommendatory in nature” and did not impose civil or penal consequences by itself. Regarding the right to be heard before an FIR, the Court held:
“A prospective accused has no vested right to be heard prior to initiation of criminal proceedings. Accepting such a proposition would seriously impair the efficacy of the criminal justice system.”
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, noting that providing a hearing to an accused before taking action would “frustrate the proceedings, obstruct the taking of prompt action… and make the provisions of law relating to the investigation lifeless, absurd, and self-defeating.”
Decision
The Court concluded that the case did not fall into any “exceptional category” warranting interference at the threshold of an investigation. It noted that whether the petitioner is ultimately responsible is a matter for thorough investigation and trial, and any interference at this stage would amount to “prematurely stifling the investigation.”
The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim order previously granted was vacated.
Case Details:
- Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
- Case No.: WPC No. 4421 of 2021
- Parties: Dr. Vevek Choudhary vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
- Judge: Justice Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
- Date: March 18, 2026
