Collector lacks jurisdiction to direct FIR; Municipal Act prosecution requires private complaint before Magistrate.

The petitioner owned 0.627 hectares of diverted land in Village Kushmoda, District Guna, purchased via registered sale deed

The authorities issued a show-cause notice alleging that the petitioner was developing an unauthorized colony without statutory permissions, violating the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 ("Act of 1961")

The petitioner replied that no plots were sold for colony development and any prior sales were due to personal necessity

On October 1, 2024, the Collector, Guna, invoking Section 339(C) of the Act of 1961, held the petitioner guilty of illegal colonization and directed the Chief Municipal Officer (CMO) to register an FIR

Consequently, an FIR was registered against the petitioner

The petitioner challenged the order on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and procedural impropriety

1. Whether the Collector possesses the statutory competence to direct the registration of an FIR for offenses under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961

2. Whether the initiation of criminal proceedings via an FIR, rather than a private complaint, is legally sustainable under the Act of 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder

The court primarily applied Section 339(C) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, and the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Colony Development) Rules, 2021

It relied on the settled legal principle established in W.P. No. 29427 of 2022 (decided on 20.12.2024), which mandates that prosecution for offenses under the Act of 1961 must be initiated exclusively via a private complaint filed before a competent Magistrate by the Municipal Council, the CMO, or a duly authorized officer

The court observed that the Collector lacked the statutory authority to order the registration of an FIR under the Act of 1961, as such power is not vested in that office by the statute

Applying the precedent from W.P. No. 29427/2022, the court reasoned that the only lawful mode of initiating prosecution under the Municipalities Act is through a private complaint in a court of law, not through police action or an FIR

The court found that the Collector had usurped jurisdiction that belongs to the Municipal Council and the CMO

Since the foundational order directing the FIR was passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction and in violation of the prescribed legal procedure, the subsequent FIR was deemed void ab initio

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Collector's order dated October 1, 2024, along with all consequential proceedings, including the registered FIR

However, the court granted the respondents liberty to proceed against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions and due process of law