Collector has jurisdiction to direct FIR registration for illegal colonization under M.P. Municipalities Act.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the Collector, Bhind

The Collector's order directed the Chief Municipal Officer to register an FIR (Crime No. 293/2018) against him for alleged illegal colonization under Section 339(C) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961

The Collector's order was issued to comply with proactive directions from a Division Bench of the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation (W.P. No. 7617/2010)

The Collector's order was issued to comply with subsequent contempt proceedings

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, contending that the Collector lacked jurisdiction to order its registration

The petitioner contended that the proper procedure was a criminal complaint under Section 313 of the Act

1. Whether the Collector has the jurisdiction and authority to direct the registration of an FIR for offenses related to illegal colonization under the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961

2. Whether the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed based on the procedural distinction between an FIR and a criminal complaint under Sections 312 and 313 of the Act

Section 339(C) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, regarding the punishment for illegal colonization.

Section 313 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, which empowers the Council or authorized officers to direct prosecutions.

Precedent of *Laxmandass Krishnani v. Municipal Council, Guna* (2018), which established that criminal prosecutions under the Act are governed by Section 313 rather than Section 312.

Precedent of *Laxmandass Krishnani v. Municipal Council, Guna* (2018), which established that a "Competent Authority" includes the Collector (per 2013 amendment to Rule 2(h) of the 1998 Rules).

Section 41(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which bars injunctions against the institution of criminal proceedings.

The Court reasoned that the Collector’s direction was not an arbitrary exercise of power but a mandatory compliance with Division Bench orders in a PIL.

The Court reasoned that the Collector’s direction was a mandatory compliance with a contempt case aimed at curbing illegal colonization.

Citing *Laxmandass*, the Court clarified that under the M.P. Nagar Palika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998, the Collector is a "Competent Authority".

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that an FIR is inherently void if Section 313 mentions "complaint".

The Court noted that if an authority has the power to file a complaint, they can certainly direct an FIR as an informant under Section 157 CrPC.

The Court distinguished the 2024 Coordinate Bench decision cited by the petitioner, noting that the present case was governed by the 1998 Rules, not the 2021 Rules.

The Court emphasized that judgments must be read in their factual context and not as statutory theorems.

The Court held that there was no jurisdictional error in the proceedings.

It further held that since the investigation is ongoing, the petitioner has the opportunity to present his defense during the trial.

The Court declined to interfere with the criminal process, noting that an injunction against criminal prosecution is barred.

The writ petition was dismissed.

Admission was declined.