Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brahma Prakash vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20219
1 WP-2663-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 3 rd OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2663 of 2013
BRAHMA PRAKASH
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Faiz Ahmed Qureshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Reserved on : 20.08.2025
Delivered on : 03.09.2025
ORDER
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the institution of proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice dated 31.12.2012 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bhind whereby, the petitioner has been called upon to show cause as to why the proceedings be not initiated against him in terms of Section 339(C) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961) as the petitioner has been prima facie found to be indulged in illegal colonization by sale of agricultural lands in small plots without there being any diversion and without obtaining any registration under the M.P. Nagar Palika (Registration of Colonizers, Terms and Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 03-Sep-25 7:16:39 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20219 2 WP-2663-2013 Conditions) Rules 1998) (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1998). The petitioner also challenges the order dated 30.03.2013 whereby, the objections raised by the petitioner against the institution of the said proceedings by the respondent No.2/Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bhind has been rejected.
2. The brief facts necessitated for filing of the writ petition are as under:-
On a report being received by the respondent No.2 that the petitioner has been indulged in illegal colonization by sale of agricultural lands situated in Survey Nos. 2658/0.293, 2659/0.052, 2662/0.125, 2665/0.241, 2682/0.052, 2683/0.031, 2684/0.261, 2685/0.021, 2686/0.052, 2687/0.042, 2680/0.10,2689/0.021, 2690/063, and other adjoining survey numbers, by dividing the same into small plots for residential use without necessary diversion of land and without obtaining registration as a colonizer under the M.P. Nagar Palika (Registration of Colonizers, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998, a show cause notice dated 31.12.2012 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the proceedings be not initiated against him in terms of Section 339(C) of the Act of 1961 and why he should not be subjected to imprisonment for 7 years and/or a fine up to Rs.10,000/- for the aforesaid violation.
The reply/objection to the said show cause was submitted by the petitioner which has been rejected by the SDO vide order dated 30.03.2013.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for an offence under Section 339 (c) of the Act of 1961, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for prosecution. It is Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 03-Sep-25 7:16:39 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20219 3 WP-2663-2013 contended that under Section 313 of the Act of 1961, only the Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipal Council is empowered to file a complaint for violation of any provision of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, and the competent authority to conduct the trial of such offence is the Judicial Magistrate.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the competent authority under the Rules of 1998 is the Sub Divisional Officer. He further submits that the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner against the show cause notice dated 31.12.2012 is itself not maintainable, as the initiation of proceedings through issuance of the impugned show cause notice cannot be challenged at this stage. Even if an FIR is registered against the petitioner, such registration is also not open for challenge on the grounds raised. The learned counsel appearing for the State further submits that in the connected matters, the direction issued by the SDO (Revenue) for registration of FIR has been challenged and the same has been opposed by the State on the ground that as the registration of an FIR is nothing but an inquiry and there can be no restraint on the inquiry proceedings. He further relies upon the judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court passed in the case of Laxmandass Krishnani vs. Municipal Council Guna and anr. reported in (2018) 1 MPLJ 126 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A. No.120/2022 (Jai Narayan Singh vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) so also, W.A. No.644/2025 (Dilmeet Singh Bal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.) and accordingly prays for dismissal of the petition. It is also submitted that the arguments advanced on behalf of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 03-Sep-25 7:16:39 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20219 4 WP-2663-2013 State in the connected W.P. No.282/2013 and W.P. No.283/2013 be taken into consideration in the instant case as well.
5. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The record indicates that the instant writ petition was directed to be listed along with W.P. No.282/2013 and W.P.No.283/2013 and an interim order in the same terms as in the said matters was granted.
8. In the connected W.P. No.282/2013 and W.P.No.283/2013, the issue arising for consideration by this Court is as to whether, the impugned order passed by the SDO directing for registration of an FIR for illegal colonization can be permitted to be challenged at this stage on the grounds raised by the petitioner. In the instant case, the petitioner has challenged the very initiation of the proceedings, however, the decision for lodging of the FIR or not is yet to be taken by the competent authority. The relevant consideration in connected W.P. No.282/2013 and W.P. No.283/2013 is as under:-
"8. Section 313 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 reads as under:-
"313. Council may prosecute. (1) The Council, the Chief Municipal Officer or any other officer authorised by the Council in this behalf in the case of Municipal Council and the Council or any other officer authorised by the Council in this behalf in the case of Nagar Panchayat may direct-
(i) any prosecution for any offence under this Act or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder;
(ii) Proceedings to be taken for the recovery of any penalties and for the punishment of any person offending against the provisions of this Act or of any rule or bye-law made thereunder; and
(iii) that the expenses of such prosecutions or other proceedings be Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 03-Sep-25 7:16:39 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20219 5 WP-2663-2013 paid out of the Municipal Fund : Provided that no prosecution for an offence under this Act or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder shall be instituted except-
(i) within 12 months next after, the date of commission of such offence; or
(ii) if such date is not known or the offence is a continuing one, within twelve months next after the date of which the commission or existence of such offence was first brought to the notice of the Council or of any officer or servant whose duty it is to report such offence to the Council. (2) Any prosecution under this Act or under any rule or bye-law thereunder may, save as therein otherwise provided, be instituted before any Magistrate; and every fine or penalty imposed under or by virtue of this Act or any rule or bye-law thereunder, and any compensation, expenses, charges or damages for the recovery of which no special provision is otherwise made in this Act may be recovered on application to any Magistrate by the distress or sale of any movable property within the limits of his jurisdiction belonging to the person from whom the money is claimed.
9. Thus it is clear that the criminal prosecution by the Municipal Council is governed by the provisions of section 313 of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.
10. Rule 2(h) of Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions), Rule 1998 which reads as under:-
"2(h) "Competent Authority" means in relation to such Municipal area which comes within the limit of any Municipal Corporation, Municipal Commissioner and in relation to such Municipal area which comes within the limit of any Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat, the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue);"
11.Rule 15-C of the Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 reads as under:-
"15-C. Action to be taken against the person for construction of the illegal colony.- Action for punishment shall be taken in accordance with the law against the person for construction of illegal colony and action for recovery of the amount which is to be recovered from such person shall also be taken by the competent authority."
12. From the plain reading of Rule 15-C of the Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998, it is clear that this rule is in two parts. The first part of the rule Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 03-Sep-25 7:16:39 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20219 6 WP-2663-2013 speaks of action for punishment which shall be taken for construction of illegal colony and the second part of the rules deals with the action for recovery of the amount which is recoverable from such person shall be taken by the competent authority. The first part of the rule is independent of the second part of the rule. If the interpretation of the rule as suggested by the counsel for the applicant is accepted, then it would mean that the complaint can be filed only by the competent authority whereas this interpretation is not permissible as it would result in head on clash with Section 339-C of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.
13. Suffice it to say that the allegations against the petitioner are that he had carried out the colonization work without getting himself registered as a colonizer and without getting the land diverted as well as without obtaining necessary sanctions under public statutes.
14. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is holding any license for developing the colony as required under Section 339-A of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act or under Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 or under any other statute. The similar is the view taken by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmandass Krishnani (supra).
15. The FIR in question is yet to be lodged. The Division Bench of this Court Principal Seat at Jabalpur in order dated 7.2.2022 passed in W.A. No.120/2022 (Jai Narayan Singh vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) has been pleased to hold as under:-
"8. This Court in the matter of Sheshdhar Badgaiya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others has considered aspects of disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal proceedings being initiated by the Cooperative Department against the salesman. In that case, a plea was taken that since the amount was paid, therefore, the criminal action should not be taken place. This Court has held that the payment or non-payment of money is of no consequence and the Court cannot direct the authorities not to register an FIR against the accused and it is only when an FIR is registered against the accused then its validity may be questioned. Lodging of FIR cannot be preempted and the authorities are expected to function under statute and interference in the statutory duties was found to be highly uncalled for. The Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint.
9. The criminal proceedings ought not to be scattered at the initial stage. Withholding or quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exceptional rather than an ordinary Rule. Ordinarily, the Courts are barred from usurping jurisdiction of the police.
10. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere into Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 03-Sep-25 7:16:39 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20219 7 WP-2663-2013 the order passed by the learned Single Judge and hence, the instant writ appeal is dismissed."
16. Similarly, in the identical matter, when the order was passed by the Collector for registration of an FIR for the offence of illegal colonization, the matter travelled upto the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior vide order dated 7.3.2025 passed in W.A. No.644/2025 (Dilmeet Singh Bal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.) considered somewhat similar arguments wherein, the FIR was already registered and has held as under:-
"3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not a colonizer but he is an agriculturist and was doing all the activities of agriculture over the land in question. No activity of sub-dividing the land into plots has been made by the petitioner over the land in question. It is further submitted that order impugned suffers from the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to registration of FIR against him. The ground in relation to legal bar in registration of FIR against the petitioner has also been raised. According to counsel for the petitioner, learned Writ Court without considering the controversy in correct perspective, declined to interfere in the matter. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/State while supporting the order passed by learned Writ Court, opposed the prayer and submits that since petitioner was found to be involved in illegal colonization therefore, rightly FIR has been registered against him. Thus, prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case, petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 05-11-2024 (Annexure P/2 to the writ petition) passed by the Collector District Guna. Petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the directions of Collector for registration of FIR against the petitioner on the pretext as mentioned in the order itself.
7. On that direction, FIR has also been registered vide crime No.1066/2024 at Police Station Guna District Guna on 07-11- 2024. Once direction has been made and FIR has been registered, then petitioner cannot agitate this question by way of writ petition where judiciousness of direction given by the Collector can be challenged. Investigation is underway and petitioner has sufficient opportunity to plead and prove his part of truth.
8. As such one has to see the dispute from another vantage point. Here, the Collector has given direction as an informant as per Section 157 of Cr.P.C. and it cannot be contended that before Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 03-Sep-25 7:16:39 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20219
8 WP-2663-2013 registration of offence, petitioner was required to be heard. Section 41(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 bars any injunction on initiation of criminal proceedings. Section 41(d) of the Specific Relief Act reads as under:
"41. Injunction when refused.--
An injunction cannot be granted--
(a) xx xx xx
(b) xx xx xx
(c) xx xx xx
(d) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter."
9. Perusal of Section 41(d) of the Specific Relief Act gives guidance that no injunction can be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceedings in a criminal matter. Therefore, petitioner cannot seek quashment of direction given by the Collector for registration of FIR. Petitioner can only challenge FIR, consequential proceedings and charge-sheet etc. in accordance with law.
10. Learned Writ Court considered in detail about this aspect and thereafter held that petitioner is not entitled to any relief. When petitioner is agriculturist (if contention of petitioner is accepted, otherwise not) and does not fall under the category of colonizer even then, all these aspects can be taken into consideration later in appropriate proceedings.
11. Considering the rival submissions and the discussion surfaced in the impugned order, it appears that no case for interference is made out. Petitioners failed to establish his case for interference. Accordingly, the order passed by learned Writ Court is hereby affirmed and the writ appeal preferred by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
12. Appeal stands dismissed."
17. The conjoint reading of the various provision of the Act of 1961 & Rules of 1998 so also proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid W.A. No.120/2022 and W.A. No.644/2025 holding that the direction for registration of FIR/initiation of an inquiry cannot be stalled as the accused has all opportunity to submit his defence at the appropriate stage the order impugned in the petition does not warrant any interference by this Court."
9. For the aforesaid reasons and the conclusion arrived at by this Court in the connected W.P. No.282/2013 and W.P. No.283/2013 upholding the authority of the SDO (Revenue) to pass an order for registration of FIR for Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 03-Sep-25 7:16:39 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20219 9 WP-2663-2013 the offence of illegal colonization, no case for interference is made out and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
(AMIT SETH) JUDGE Van Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 03-Sep-25 7:16:39 PM