Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vidya Devi vs State Of M.P. on 3 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20219
1 WP-282-2013
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. 282 of 2013
VIDYA DEVI
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Faiz Ahmed Qureshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - Govt. Advocate for 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 226/227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 01.08.2012 passed by the respondent No.3/Sub Divisional Officer, District Ashok Nagar whereby, on finding the violation of the provisions contained in Section 172 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, Section 339-B of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961) and the provisions contained in the M.P. Nagar Palika (Registration of Colonizers, Terms and Conditions) Rules 1998 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1998), the direction has been issued for registration of FIR against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has been found to be indulged in illegal 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-282-2013 colonization without permission and without obtaining the license under the Rules of 1998.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are as under:-
A report was submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Nazul, that the petitioner has indulged in sale of agricultural lands bearing Survey No.1634/3 min, 1670/1A/3, 1670/6/7C min total admeasuring 0.411 hectares of agricultural land in small plots resulting in illegal colonization. A show cause was issued to the petitioner and a reply was received. Taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner, the respondent No.3 was satisfied that the petitioner has been indulged in illegal colonization by sale of agricultural land in small plots without getting the land diverted and without getting herself registered under the provisions of Rules of 1998 thereby, violation of Section 172 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, Section 339 (B) of the Municipalities Act, 1961 and violation of the M.P. Nagar Palika (Registration of Colonizers, Terms and Conditions) Rules 1998) was found to be committed by the petitioner prima facie constituting a cognizable offence under Section 339 (c) and (d) of the Act of 1961 and accordingly, a direction was issued by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.5-Revenue Inspector for lodging of an FIR against the petitioner in accordance with law vide order dated 1.8.2012 and the copy of the said order was sent to the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Ashoknagar. It is this order which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for an 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-282-2013 offence under Section 339 (c) (d) of the Act of 1961 the competent authority for lodging of report in terms of Section 313 of the Act of 1961 is the Chief Municipal Officer and the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has no authority in law to institute proceedings for registration of the FIR. In support of his contention the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon an order dated 21.12.2012 passed in M.Cr.C. No.10043/2012 wherein, the FIR registered for offence punishable under Section 339 (c) (d) of the Act of 1961 on the direction issued by the SDO has been quashed.
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 and admittedly, the petitioner has been found to be indulged in illegal colonization i.e. sale of agricultural land in small plots without there being any diversion and without there being any registration under the Rules of 1998 and therefore, the order has been passed by the competent authority for registration of the FIR in question. He further submits that in respect of the cognizable offence, any person can lodge the FIR. He further submits that the order impugned in the petition directing for lodging of an FIR cannot be challenged at this stage, 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. 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-282-2013 State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.) and accordingly prays for dismissal of the petition.
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 issue arising for consideration by this Court is as to whether, the order dated 1.8.2012 (Annexure P/1) impugned in the instant writ petition directing for registration of an FIR can be permitted to be challenged in the instant writ petition at this stage on the ground raised by the petitioner.
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 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 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-282-2013 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 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 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-282-2013 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 she had carried out the colonization work without getting herself 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 she 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 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-282-2013 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 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.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-282-2013
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 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.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 03-Sep-25 7:16:39 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20219 9 WP-282-2013 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 provisions of the Act of 1961 & the 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.
18. The reliance placed upon by the petitioner on the order dated 21.12.2012 passed in M.Cr.C. No.10043/2012 will be of no assistance for more than one reason i.e. in the instant case, the FIR is yet to be registered and the aforesaid order runs contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the two different Division Benches of this Court.
19. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that 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