The main legal point established is the flexibility of natural justice, the requirement of a reasoned order in administrative proceedings, and the caution in quashing an FIR.

As per G.D. Saxena, J.:-

Being aggrieved by an order dated 5th February, 2013 of the learned Single Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 791/2013, this appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been preferred with the following prayer:-

"In view of the facts mentioned hereinabove, the appellant prays that this appeal be allowed and impugned order dated 5th February, 2013 passed by the Hon'ble Writ Court in W.P. No. 791/13 be set aside in the interest of justice and allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner with consequential benefits."

2. The petitioner by moving the aforesaid petition challenged the impugned order dated 26th September, 2012 (Annexure P-1), the order dated 25th September, 2012 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Tehsildar, Narwar which was confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karera-Narwar, District Shivpuri alongwith an order dated 12th December, 2012 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Collector, Shivpuri, in Revenue Appeal No. 05/12-13/Appeal, under Section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, in consequence of which the FIR (Annexure P-12) was registered against the appellant at Crime No. 176/2012 for commission of offence under Section 420/467/468 of IPC. The learned Writ Court after due consideration passed the following order :-

"In the light of the aforesaid, in my opinion, there is no ingredient in the FIR, which warrants interference by this Court at this stage. The other orders (Annexure P-1, Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-11), are administrative orders which also warrants no interference from this Court. Consequently, petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed."

3. Facts in short, just for decision are that a complaint in writing from Malkhan Singh son of Chau, Mst. Bhago wife of Rajaram, Amarsingh son of Asharam and Nistibai wife of Harisingh members of Scheduled Tribes, residents of Village Indargarh was received that the lands comprised in Survey No. 9/21712/11, 786/3, 395/11 and 323/1 of Indargarh were Government lands recorded in Khasra since five years from years 2006-2007 to 2010-20fh The petitioner being Patwari of the area after joining hands with others made a wrong entry regarding possession of the interested parties and created false rights over Government lands. Eventually, the said lands were mortgaged in favour of the forged owners who thereafter, sold the lands to others. Immediately after receiving such complaint, the Tehsildar with previous permission of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the area conducted the enquiry in the matter. Before enquiry, show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply and on his request the record under enquiry was made available for his inspection. Thereafter, in his presence, the evidence of the persons was recorded. After requisite enquiry, the Tehsildar passed the order dated 22nd September, 2012. In compliance of the order dated 22nd September, 2012, the FIR was lodged at Police Station, Narwar. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22nd September, 2012, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code before the Collector Shivpuri. This appeal was decided by an order dated 12th December, 2012. It is also submitted that in an enquiry conducted to know the truthfulness, the Enquiry Officer before passing administrative order did not afford any opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and, therefore, the orders issued on administrative side vide Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-11 are liable to set aside and in consequence thereto the FIR lodged on the basis of order dated 22nd September, 2012 is also liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decisions in the cases of D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259, V.C. Banaras Hindu University Vs. Shrikant, (2006) 11 SCC 42, Kothari Filaments Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port), (2009) 2 SC