No Need To Hear Proposed Accused Before Ordering FIR Registration: TN DVAC Opposes Former Minister KN Nehru's Review Plea In High Court

Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) on Friday (August 7) opposed former Minister KN Nehru's plea seeking review of the Madras High Court order directing registration of a corruption FIR against him, allegedly in violation of natural justice.The probe agency argued that there is no requirement in law to hear a proposed accused before a court orders registration of an FIR.The submissions were made by Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan. In an earlier hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for Nehru had argued that the former Minister had a right to be heard before the Court directed the DVAC to register an FIR against him.Countering the contention, Dave today argued,“Where is the question of hearing an accused before registering FIR? In that case, no FIR can be filed…The Supreme Court has held that an accused's right of being heard is not affected if he is not heard before passing an order for registration of FIR.” Dave also argued that the entire proceeding was criminal in nature and the former Minister could not seek a review of the order by relying upon the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. “This will be opening floodgates in respect to procedure. One cannot use provisions of CPC to seek review of criminal matter. It is purely criminal what we're arguing before court. An offence has taken place, criminal. FIR was not filed, criminal. Relief sought for registration of FIR, criminal,” Dave argued. Dave also argued that a procedural review of the court's order can be sought only when the order is dismissed in limine, without going into the merits of the case. The court noted that in the present case, the original petition was filed by someone else, and only the petitioner could approach the court seeking a review. “A procedural review arises when the accused comes to court for some relief but it's dismissed in limine. It can be reviewed only on circumstances when no order has been passed on merits. Here the petitioner was someone else. The prayer was for registration of FIR. IF assuming that his petition was dismissed in limine, he could have moved an application seeking to be heard. But now what has happened is that the respondent wants entire order to be reviewed,” Dave said. Dave also argued that as per Section 362 CrPC, there was a statutory ban on all court, including the High Court from reviewing a criminal matter. He added that the only exception was the Supreme Court, which could hear a review against a criminal matter also. Dave also questioned Nehru and others not challenging the High Court's order before the Supreme Court and instead approaching the High Court, seeking a relief which they were not entitled to. “Why didn't the petitioners approach the SC saying that they were not heard? It is not as if they were not having remedy in law. But they've chosen a remedy which is not available to them. This petition deserves to be rejected at the very threshold because the court does not have power to go into it,” Dave argued. After hearing the arguments of the DVAC, the court adjourned the hearing to August 10 (Monday). Background On February 20, the bench had directed the Tamil Nadu DVAC to register a case forthwith based on the materials shared by the Enforcement Directorate. The Court had also criticised the delay on the part of the State in proceeding with the investigation even after the ED had shared materials, which prima facie showed the commission of an offence. The court noted that in cases involving such sensitive issues, the State should have acted diligently and registered a case without delay. Stating that no FIR had been registered against Nehru despite the court order, Rajya Sabha MP Inbadurai had approached the Madras High Court seeking action against IPS officer AT Durai Kumar (In-Charge Director of Directorate for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) for alleged wilful disobedience of the High Court order. Meanwhile, Nehru, his brothers, and the State Government had also approached the court, seeking a review of its earlier order. After a change in State Government following the 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative assembly elections, when the case was taken up for hearing, the newly appointed Advocate General Vijay Narayan informed the court that the TN DVAC had registered an FIR against Nehru. It was also informed that the State intended to withdraw its review petition. When the court pointed out that the State had earlier given an undertaking that it would not take any action and wondered how the FIR came to be registered, the AG submitted that the undertaking made by the former AG, who was acting under the instructions of the then government, would not be binding on the new government. The court then restrained the State from taking any action against Nehru till the matter was ...

No Need To Hear Proposed Accused Before Ordering FIR Registration: TN DVAC Opposes Former Minister KN Nehru's Review Plea In High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

No Need To Hear Proposed Accused Before Ordering FIR Registration: TN DVAC Opposes Former Minister KN Nehru's Review Plea In High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers