Rais Khan vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that it is not open for authorities to direct the registration of an FIR against individuals during the pendency of proceedings under Sections 89 and 92 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, if a prima facie commission of a cognizable offense is found. The Court relied on Division Bench judgments in Jai Narayan Singh vs. State of M.P. and W.A.No.644/2025 (Dilmeet Singh Bal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.). These judgments established that the initiation of criminal proceedings, including the registration of an FIR, cannot be stalled, as the accused has ample opportunity to present their defense at the appropriate stage of investigation. The Court reasoned that Sections 89 and 92 of the Act of 1993 deal with recovery of amounts and records, and do not preclude criminal action for offenses like cheating, forgery, or misappropriation. The Court also noted that Section 41(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, bars injunctions restraining criminal proceedings. Therefore, the impugned communication directing the registration of an FIR did not warrant interference. The Court found that previous interim and final orders cited by the petitioners were not binding as they were either from coordinate benches or dealt with distinct aspects like civil liability versus criminal liability. The petition was dismissed as no case for interference was made out.

Facts

The petitioners, Rais Khan and others, who were Sarpanch and Secretary of a Gram Panchayat, challenged a communication dated 13.10.2025. This communication directed the registration of an FIR against them based on a preliminary inquiry that found them guilty of misappropriating Panchayat funds amounting to Rs. 11,52,325/- paid to one Rashid Khan, who allegedly did not possess a GST number. The petitioners argued that proceedings under Sections 89 and 92 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, were already pending for the same allegations, and no final order had been passed. They also contended that the impugned communication was issued without affording them an adequate opportunity of hearing and that their reply to the preliminary inquiry was not considered. They relied on previous interim and final orders from the High Court in similar matters. The State argued that no opportunity of hearing is contemplated before FIR registration, and the petitioners would have a chance to present their defense during the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether, during the pendency of proceedings under Sections 89 and 92 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, it is permissible for authorities to direct the registration of an FIR against individuals if a prima facie commission of a cognizable offense is found? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: - Proceedings under Sections 89 and 92 of the Act of 1993 are already initiated for the same allegations, and no final order has been passed. - The impugned communication was issued without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing and without considering their reply to the preliminary inquiry. - Relied on interim orders in W.P.No.3857/2022, W.P.No.5607/2020, and a final order in W.P.No.23783/2019, suggesting that FIR registration directions could be stayed or could not be issued without following the prescribed procedure under Sections 89 and 92. - An interim order in W.P.No.37271/2025 stayed a removal order against Petitioner No.1, indicating malafide intent. Respondents' Arguments: - The law does not contemplate an opportunity of hearing prior to the registration of an FIR. - Petitioners will have a full opportunity to submit their defense during the investigation process. - The writ petition seeking to stall the inquiry at this stage should not be entertained.