Jurisdiction for specified offences under Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam lies exclusively with the Special Court, not ordinary Magistrates.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

nd

ON THE 22 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11316 of 2025 KULDEEP RAJAWAT Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vivek Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri BPS Chauhan - Public Prosecutor for the State.

ORDER The present application, preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), seeks quashment of the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior, in Criminal Revision No. 336 of 2014. By the impugned order, the learned Revisional Court, while dismissing the revision preferred by the applicant, affirmed the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chachoda, whereby the complaint/application filed by respondent No. 3 – Smt. Seema Tomar under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C . was allowed, and the Police Station Maharajpura was directed to register a First Information Report against the accused person(s) on the basis of the said application and, upon completion of investigation, to submit the final report before the competent court.

Signature Not Verified Learned counsel for the applicant, while assailing the aforesaid order, drew the attention of this Court to the contents of the private complaint and argued that, with regard to the robbery of ₹20,000/- and gold jewellery apart from the incident of physical assault, the complainant had filed a private complaint against the present applicant seeking registration of a crime for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 308, 340, 391, 34 of IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. It was submitted that the learned trial Court, without taking note of the fact that the alleged robbery was committed in an area notified under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 , had directed registration of FIR. Such a direction, however, could only have been issued by the Special Court constituted under Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, 1981, as only that Court had jurisdiction to entertain a private complaint in terms of Section 7 of the Adhiniyam, 1981 and in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 8 thereof. Without considering these statutory provisions and the contents of the private complaint, the Court below issued directions which are per se illegal.

Learned counsel has further referred to the definition of "specified offence" under Section 2 (f) of the Adhiniyam, 1981 and submitted that "specified offences" mean offences punishable under Sections 2 12, 216, 216- A, 311, 347, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, when committed in relation to an area declared under Section 3 of the Adhiniyam, 1981. As the provisions of Section 3 92 IPC (robbery) were clearly attracted in the present matter, jurisdiction to Signature Not Verified entertain the private complaint vested exclusively with the Special Court as notified under the Adhiniyam, 1981.

Apart from the aforesaid, learned counsel placed reliance on the definition of a "dacoit" as provided under Section 2 (b) of the Adhiniyam, 1981, wherein a "dacoit," in relation to a dacoity and kidnapping-affected area, means a person who commits or has committed an offence punishable under Section 395 IPC or a specified offence, or, as the case may be, a person accused of commission of any such offence. Thus, when the complaint itself made mention of the commission of robbery as defined under Section 390 IPC and punishable under Section 392 IPC, the Court below ought to have referred the matter to the Special Court instead of directing the police to register a crime.

Learned counsel further submitted that even when the aforesaid grounds were raised before the revisional Court,