Private individuals lack locus standi to seek FIR registration for financial irregularities governed by the special MNREGA statutory framework.

The revisionist, an elected ward member of Gram Panchayat Majhauva Bakunth, filed an application under Section 173(4) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) before the A.C.J.M.-I, Basti, seeking directions for the registration of an FIR against the Gram Pradhan and others for alleged embezzlement of MNREGA funds via fictitious job cards and fraudulent transfers

An inquiry report by the Chief Development Officer (CDO) found no major financial embezzlement but noted procedural lapses regarding job cards, for which administrative action was already taken

The Magistrate rejected the application on 20.12.2024, prompting this revision

Section 173(4) of the BNSS, noting it as a discretionary, enabling provision rather than a mandatory one

Section 28 of the MNREGA Act, 2005, which grants the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws

Schedule I (Paragraphs 26, 29(f), and 32), which vests the power to lodge FIRs for financial irregularities exclusively in the District Programme Coordinator

Precedents Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke defined the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.

The principle of noscitur a sociis was used for statutory interpretation

Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. established that a subsequent special statute prevails over an earlier one

The Court reasoned that Section 173(4) BNSS requires "satisfaction" by the Magistrate and does not mandate mechanical registration of an FIR upon request

In the context of MNREGA, the Court found that the Act is a complete code; Paragraph 29(f) of Schedule I specifically designates the District Programme Coordinator as the authority to lodge an FIR after obtaining legal advice

Consequently, a private individual—even an elected ward member—lacks the locus standi to bypass this designated authority

The Court further held that since the MNREGA Act (2005) is a later special enactment with a non-obstante clause (Section 28), it prevails over any perceived rights under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947

Since the CDO report indicated that departmental corrective actions were already taken, the Magistrate’s refusal to exercise discretionary power was deemed legally sound and not perverse

The Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the Magistrate’s order as justified and free from jurisdictional error [para 31-32]. It clarified that any ongoing administrative proceedings under the MNREGA Act should continue independently