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

th

ON THE 27 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 57132 of 2022 MAHESH KUSHWAH AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pradeep Katare - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.

Shri Kushagra Shukla - Advocate for respondent [R-2].

ORDER The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioners seeking quashment of order dated 26.07.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Lahar District Bhind in UNCR No. 41/2021 whereby while allowing application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. preferred by the respondent No.2 directions were issued to the concerned Police Station to register an FIR against present petitioners under Section 394 of IPC and 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and in pursuance thereof Crime No.

132/2022 has been registered.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court towards the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 (In short "Adhiniyam of 1981") and has argued that as per Section 8 of the said Adhiniyam only a Special Court can take cognizance of any specified offence; upon receiving a complaint which constitutes such offence; or upon a police report of such facts; or upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon its own knowledge, that such offence has been committed and no other court is empowered to take cognizance if any of the provisions of the aforesaid Adhiniyam as well as sections provided as specified offences as defined under Sections 2(f) of the said Adhiniyam are attracted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further referred to Section

156(3) of Cr.P.C. and has submitted that under the provisions of said sub- section only the Magistrate who is empowered under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. may order such an investigation to be conducted and as Section 8 of Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 only authorizes Special Court to take cognizance of the offences specified therein, cognizance taken by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Lahar District Bhind is bad in law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further referred to Section

193 of Cr.P.C. which provides cognizance of offences by Courts of Session and has argued that except as otherwise expressly provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code, and as there is specific bar under the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 for taking cognizance by a Magistrate other than the Special Courts, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class could not have directed investigation or registration of FIR as it was not competent to take cognizance under Section 190 of Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further referred to definition of a dacoit as provided under Section 2(b) of Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 wherein it has been provided that in relation to a dacoity and kidnapping affected area, a dacoit means a person who commits or has committed an offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code or a specified offence (as defined under Section 2(f) of Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981), or as the case may be, a person accused of commission of any such offence and as per Section 2(f)(2)(iii), offence under Section 394 of IPC has been stated to be a specified offence which has been directed to be registered against present petitioners. Thus, when learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Lahar District Bhind itself was not authorized to take cognizance under Sectio