Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rais Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26760
1 WP-41288-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 17th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 41288 of 2025
RAIS KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.K.Sharma and Shri S.K.Sharma - Advocates for the petitioners.
Ms. Ekta Vyas - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. The instant writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, challenges the communication dated 13.10.2025 (Annexure P/1)
issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Vidisha, whereby the
Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lateri, District Vidisha has been
directed to register F.I.R. against the petitioners as, in an preliminary inquiry,
the petitioners being Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Malaniya,
Janpad Lateri, have been found guilty of misappropriation and illegal
payments of funds of Panchayat to the tune of Rs.11,52,325/- to one Rashid
Khan whereas, in the preliminary inquiry, no shop with GST number in the
name of Rashid Khan has been found.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that for the
same allegation, the proceedings under Sections 89 and 92 of the Madhya
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26760
2 WP-41288-2025
Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act of 1993) have been initiated against the petitioners.
The inquiry in the said proceedings are pending, the petitioners have filed
their return in the said proceedings. However, without there being any final
order in the said proceedings, the impugned communication dated
13.10.2025 directing for registration of F.I.R. against the petitioners is
illegal.
4 . Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that even the
communication dated 13.10.2025 has been issued without affording adequate
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Though the impugned
communicated dated 13.10.2025 stated that on the basis of preliminary
inquiry, the same is issued but the reply submitted by the petitioners in the
said preliminary inquiry has not been considered. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further places reliance upon the interim order dated 22.02.2022
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in
W.P.No.3857/2022 wherein, in some what similar circumstances, the
direction for registration of F.I.R has been stayed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also places reliance upon the
final order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court,
Principal Seat at Jabalpur in W.P.No.23783/2019 to contend that without
following the procedure and provisions as contained under Sections 89 and
92 of the Act, 1993, a direction for lodging the F.I.R. could not have been
issued. The reliance is further placed on interim order dated 03.03.2020
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5607/2020.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26760
3 WP-41288-2025
Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that for the same set of
allegations, the proceedings under Section 40 of the Act of 1993 were
initiated against the petitioner No.1 and an order dated 10.09.2025 was
passed whereby, the petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpanch but
the said order dated 10.09.2025 has been interfered with by this Court in
W.P.No.37271/2025 and an interim order dated 18.09.2025 has been passed
by this Court in W.P.No.37271/2025 wherein, the removal order dated
10.09.2025 has been stayed. The petitioners' counsel thus submits that since
the respondents are malafidely trying to get rid of the petitioners, the
impugned communication dated 13.10.2025 has been issued. On these
grounds, the prayer for admission of the writ petition and grant of stay is
made.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State
opposes the writ petition and submits that law does not contemplated
opportunity of hearing prior to the registration of F.I.R.. The petitioners will
be having full opportunity to submit their defense in the investigation
process and the instant writ petition filed by the petitioners at this stage
seeking to stall the inquiry may not be entertained.
7. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The issue which arises for consideration by this Court in the petition
is as to whether, during the pendency of the proceedings under Sections 89
and 92 of the Act of 1993, is it open for the authorities to direct for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26760
4 WP-41288-2025
registration of the F.I.R. against the petitioners in case prima facie the
commission of cognizable offence is found to be committed.
10. In some what similar circumstances wherein, inspite of there being
a stay order passed by the competent authority on the order passed against
office bearer, officer or servant of Panchayat under Sections 89 and 92 of the
Act of 1993. A direction was issued for lodging of an F.I.R which came to be
challenged before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Jai Narayan Singh vs. State of M.P. and Ors. , reported in 2022 (2) MPLJ
194 considered the said aspect and has held as under:-
"5 . The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner has
taken us to sections 89 and 92 of the Act of 1993 and contended that
both these sections are interconnected. As per section 89 of the Act
of 1993, the office bearers can be held to be responsible for loss,
waste or misappropriation of any money or other property of the
Panchayat or Gram Nirman Samiti and Gram Vikas Samiti or
Committee of Gram Sabha to which he has been a party or which
has been caused by him by misconduct or gross negligence of his
duties. However, as per submission of the appellant/petitioner, no
recovery can be made unless a reasonable opportunity of being
heard is given. According to him, section 92 of the Act of 1993 also
empowers the prescribed Authority to recover records, articles and
money while taking recourse to the provisions of the said Act.
However, neither section 89 nor section 92 of the Act of 1993 can be
invoked against the appellant/petitioner when there is already stay
against recovery. He places reliance on the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra Pandey v. State of
M.P., (2017) 3 MP LJ 384 and decision of learned Single Judge in
the case of Kadam Singh v. CEO, (2019) 1 MP LJ 420.
6. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, he prays that the
directions of lodging an FIR are completely uncalled for and,
therefore, this Court must interfere.
7. We are not impressed with the submissions putforth by the
appellant/petitioner. A perusal of section 89 of the Act of 1993
shows that the prescribed authority is empowered to recover the
amount reimbursing loss, waste or misappropriation caused at the
behest of any office bearer of the Panchayat as mentioned therein.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26760
5 WP-41288-2025
Section 92 of the Act of 1993 applies in a case where the prescribed
authority is of the opinion that any person has unauthorisedly in his
custody any record or article or money belonging to the Panchayat
or any Committee of the Panchayat, as mentioned therein. Neither
section 89 nor section 92 of the Act of 1993 deals with the situation
where any criminal act is found to have been committed by the
Office bearer of Panchayat such as cheating, forgery,
misappropriation etc. of Government Fund. The judgments relied
upon by the appellant/petitioner also do not deal with such a
situation.
(emphasis
supplied)
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 the
order passed by the learned Single Judge and hence, the instant writ
appeal is dismissed."
11. Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior vide order
dated 07.03.2025 passed in W.A.No.644/2025 (Dilmeet Singh Bal vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.), in a case where F.I.R was already registered
and has held as under:-
"6. In the present case, petitioner has taken exception to the order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26760
6 WP-41288-2025
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.
Accordingly, the order passed by learned Writ Court is hereby
affirmed and the writ appeal preferred by the petitioner is hereby
dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26760
7 WP-41288-2025
12. Appeal stands dismissed."
12. In view of the propositions of law laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case of (Jai Narayan) 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 communication impugned in the
petition does not warrant any interference by this Court.
13. The interim order and final orders passed by the Coordinate Bench
of this Court in W.P.No.5607/2020, W.P.No.3857/2022 and
W.P.No.23783/2019 may be no assistance to the petitioners as the judgment
in the case of Jai Narayan Singh (supra) is by the Division Bench of this
Court and is therefore binding on this Court.
14. Similarly, the order of interim stay passed by this Court in
W.P.No.37271/2025 against the order of removal of the petitioner No.1 from
the post of Sarpanch will also be of no assistance to the petitioners as, the
scope of interference and considerations in the cases pertaining to the civil
liability qua criminal liability are distinct and different which aspect has also
been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jai
Narayan Singh (supra).
15. No case for interference is made out. Accordingly, admission is
declined and the petition stands dismissed.
16. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand closed.
(AMIT SETH)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26760
8 WP-41288-2025
JUDGE
AK/-
