FIR in DA cases can be lodged without hearing public servant at pre-registration stage: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday held that it is not mandatory to seek an explanation from a public servant before registering an FIR in disproportionate assets cases.

It observed that if the investigating agencies possess sufficient ''source material'' disclosing a cognisable offence, an FIR can be lodged even without a separate preliminary inquiry.

The Lucknow bench of the high court also clarified that at the stage of FIR registration, the role of the investigating officer is limited to verifying whether the material available prima facie discloses the commission of an offence, and that an accused cannot claim a right of hearing or explanation before the registration of a case.

A division bench comprising Justices Abdul Moin and Pramod Kumar Srivastava passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by Deena Nath Yadav seeking quashing of an FIR lodged against him in a disproportionate assets case.

The FIR was registered at the Vigilance Commission police station, Lucknow Sector, on December 17, 2025, under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

According to the FIR, an open vigilance inquiry found that the petitioner's known sources of income were around Rs 1.95 crore, while his expenditure stood at approximately Rs 2.51 crore, indicating excess expenditure of nearly Rs 55 lakh allegedly disproportionate to his known income sources.

The petitioner had argued before the court that no explanation regarding his income and assets was sought from him before the registration of the FIR.

It was also contended that a 2021 order of the high court had restrained state authorities from seeking details of his assets, and therefore, initiation of proceedings without obtaining his explanation was illegal.

Opposing the plea, the state government submitted that the Supreme Court had already settled the legal position that a public servant does not have a pre-FIR right to explain alleged disproportionate assets.

Relying on various Supreme Court judgments, the bench observed that an investigating officer at the FIR stage is only required to determine whether the available material discloses a cognisable offence on a prima facie basis.

The court said the accused cannot insist on a prior opportunity of hearing before the registration of the FIR.

It also held that the open vigilance inquiry conducted in the case itself constituted sufficient ''source report'' material to justify the registration of the FIR, and, therefore, the proceedings could not be termed illegal, as it dismissed the petition.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)