Magistrate Cannot Direct FIR Registration for MPDVPK Act Offences; Only Special Court Has Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes FIR Against Petitioners

“Section 156(3) CrPC Order Is Not Cognizance — But If Cognizance Itself Is Barred, Magistrate Cannot Invoke Even 156(3)” — Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior delivered a significant ruling wherein it quashed an FIR registered pursuant to an order of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC for offences under Section 394 of the IPC and Sections 11 and 13 of the MPDVPK Act, 1981.

Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke emphatically held that a Judicial Magistrate First Class is not competent to direct registration of an FIR for “specified offences” under the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981, since the jurisdiction for such offences exclusively lies with the Special Court under Section 8 of the said Act.

This ruling clarifies a vital procedural and jurisdictional issue that often arises in dacoity and kidnapping affected zones — whether a Magistrate can act even at the pre-cognizance stage when the offence is one that falls under the exclusive domain of a Special Court.

Petitioners Successfully Challenge Magistrate’s Order Directing Registration of FIR Under MPDVPK Act

The petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed by Mahesh Kushwah and others seeking to quash the order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar (District Bhind), in UNCR No. 41/2021. By that order, the Magistrate had allowed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC filed by Respondent No.2 and directed the local police to register an FIR under Section 394 IPC and Sections 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act.

Pursuant to that order, Crime No. 132/2022 was registered at Police Station Mihona, Bhind.

“Only Special Court Can Take Cognizance of Specified Offences; Magistrate Has No Role Even at Pre-Cognizance Stage”

Justice Phadke began by outlining the statutory scheme under the MPDVPK Act. Referring to Section 8 of the Act, the Court observed:

“From the aforesaid provisions of law, it is very much clear that only the Special Courts as specified under Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 are competent to take cognizance of any specified offence as defined under Section 2(f) of the said Adhiniyam.”

He further noted that Section 394 IPC is explicitly included within the definition of “specified offence” under Section 2(f)(2)(iii) of the MPDVPK Act, thereby bringing it within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted under the Act.

The Court emphasized: “Thus, prima facie it appears to this Court that the directions issued by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar, for registering FIR under the aforesaid sections are bad in law.”

No Power to Act Under Section 156(3) CrPC When Cognizance is Barred Under Section 190 CrPC

While acknowledging that a direction under Section 156(3) CrPC is not the same as taking cognizance, the Court clarified that only a Magistrate who is competent to take cognizance under Section 190 CrPC can issue such directions. Since the MPDVPK Act excludes such power from Magistrates with respect to specified offences, the order under Section 156(3) CrPC was without jurisdiction.

Justice Phadke held:

“As Section 8 of the Adhiniyam 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.”

He also clarified that the procedural bar is not limited to the trial stage:

“The aforesaid direction for registration of FIR under the aforesaid provisions was not within the domain of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Lahar District Bhind as the same was not the specified Court for dealing with such offences.”

Arguments by the Respondents Rejected

Counsel for the State and the complainant had argued that the Magistrate had not taken cognizance but merely directed the police to register an FIR, and that cognizance would later be taken by the competent Sessions Court upon committal. However, this contention was squarely rejected.

The Court noted that the legislative intent behind constituting Special Courts for specified offences under MPDVPK Act would be defeated if Magistrates are permitted to entertain even preliminary applications in such cases.

“Section 6 of the Adhiniyam is clear that for the purposes of providing speedy trial of specified offences committed in a dacoity and kidnapping affected area, the State Government has constituted Special Courts. Therefore, the jurisdictional bar is absolute.”

Magistrate Acted Without Jurisdiction — Order and FIR Set Aside

Holding the Magistrate’s order and the FIR as jurisdictionally flawed, the Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

“Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 26.07.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Lahar District Bhind in UNCR No. 41/2021 is hereby set aside and the FIR bearing crime No. 132/2022 registered at Police Station Mihona District Bhind for offence punishable under Sections 394 of IPC and 11/13 of MPDVPK Act against the petitioners is hereby quashed.”

This judgment sets a vital precedent in protecting the exclusive jurisdiction of Special Courts under the MPDVPK Act, and clarifies the interplay between CrPC and Special Statutes — especially on the limits of judicial power at pre-cognizance stage.

Date of Decision: 27 November 2025