The Supreme Court has said that where an FIR is registered solely on the basis of an administrative order that the State itself admits was passed without jurisdiction over a matter triable by a civil court, such FIR cannot be sustained. Court said criminal law should not be set in motion for disputes that are purely civil in nature.
A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar made the observation while quashing an FIR registered against Shailendra Agrawal and another for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code [corresponding to Sections 316, 318(4), 335, 336(3), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023].
Why did the Supreme Court quash the FIR?
The appeal filed by Agrawal and another challenged the order passed by the division bench of the high court, which had affirmed the order of the single judge. The appellants had sought setting aside of the order passed by the Additional Collector, Kanadia, on February 22, 2022, as well as the FIR registered at Police Station-Kanadia.
The high court had observed that the complaint alleged that the appellants were selling plots and receiving money without completing the development of the colony.
While considering the complaint, the Additional Collector passed an order holding that under the Memorandum of Understanding dated September 10, 2007, the right to sell the plots was available only with the landowner, namely the fourth respondent. The Additional Collector also observed that the completion certificate had wrongly been obtained from the SDO and that the mortgaged plots had been fraudulently redeemed.
Based on these observations, the Additional Collector directed registration of an FIR against the appellants.
The high court observed that since an FIR had already been registered, no interference could be made even if the Additional Collector’s order dated February 22, 2022, was treated as being without authority or declared illegal.
What did the State tell the Supreme Court?
Before the Supreme Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh filed an affidavit stating that, upon examining the material on record, the Additional Collector had passed the order in the revenue case after recording a prima facie finding of fraud and misrepresentation in the procurement of the release of the mortgaged plots.
The Additional Collector had accordingly directed that the police authorities be informed so that criminal law could be set in motion.
However, the Additional Collector subsequently disposed of the revenue case by an order dated November 7, 2024, holding that he had no subject-matter jurisdiction over the question of allotment of plots to colony members inter se.
The State’s affidavit stated that the issue was a matter triable by a civil court and was distinct from the commission of cognizable offences disclosed by the record and independently taken cognizance of by the investigating agency.
Dispute over plots was a civil matter
The Bench said it was “abundantly clear” that the substance of the application filed by the private respondents before the Additional Collector concerned the release of the mortgaged plots and the failure of the appellants to carry out development work.
Court noted that the State had itself rightly found this to be a matter triable by the civil court.
The Bench emphasized that once the State was of the view that the dispute between the parties brought before the Additional Collector was a matter triable by the civil court, the consequential action of the Additional Collector in lodging the FIR against the appellants could not be sustained.
The State counsel, however, pointed out that in the writ petition before the single judge, the only prayer was for quashing of the Additional Collector’s order and not the FIR/Crime Number.
It was argued that, in these circumstances, the high court had rightly held that once an FIR/Crime Number was registered for a cognizable offence, quashing the Additional Collector’s order would not automatically set aside the FIR.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed.
“In our considered view, once an order passed by the Additional Collector is the basis for registering an FIR/Crime Number and on State’s own admission, if that order was without jurisdiction as it involved a civil dispute, the FIR registered on the basis of the said order has to go and the same cannot be continued in the teeth of the admission made by the State,” the Bench said.
Court accordingly set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR registered at Police Station-Kanadia, holding that it arose out of a civil dispute.
Case Title: Shailendra Agrawal Vs Additional Collector and Additional Magistrate & Ors
Bench: Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar
Date of Judgment: July 28, 2026