Municipalities Act prosecutions require private complaints by authorized municipal authorities, not Collector-directed FIRs.

The Collector and District Magistrate, Gwalior, acting under Section 339(C) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, found Balbir Singh involved in unauthorised colonisation and directed the S.D.O. (Revenue), Dabra, to register an FIR against him.

The petitioner challenged that direction, contending that the Collector lacked authority to initiate prosecution and that prosecution under the Act and the Colony Development Rules could be commenced only by an authorised municipal authority through a private complaint.

The State maintained that the petitioner had subdivided and sold plots and developed roads without permission.

The judgment refers to the challenged order as dated 1 October 2024 at the outset, but later identifies it as dated 1 April 2026.

1. Whether the Collector had statutory authority to direct prosecution or registration of an FIR for alleged offences under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.

2. Whether the FIR registered pursuant to the Collector’s direction could stand when prosecution under the Act and the applicable Rules was required to be initiated by an authorised municipal authority through a private complaint.

Under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 and the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Colony Development) Rules, 2021, prosecution for offences under the Act or the Rules must be initiated by a private complaint before the competent Judicial Magistrate, filed by the Municipal Council, the Chief Municipal Officer, or an officer duly authorised by the Council.

The Court applied its decision in W.P. No. 29427 of 2022 and connected matters, decided on 20 December 2024, which stated that rule.

The judgment also refers to Section 339(C) of the 1961 Act as the provision invoked by the Collector.

The Court treated the prior ruling in W.P. No. 29427 of 2022 as governing the matter.

Because the Collector was not among the authorities identified as competent to initiate prosecution, the Court held that the Collector lacked jurisdiction to direct prosecution or FIR registration.

The resulting FIR, having been registered pursuant to that direction, was likewise unsustainable.

The State’s allegations concerning plot sales and development did not cure the defect in the authority or procedure used to initiate prosecution.

It left the respondents at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, subject to statutory requirements and due process.

The judgment’s operative discussion dates the quashed order as 1 April 2026, notwithstanding the different date stated at the outset.