Magistrate Cannot Give Criminal Colour To Administrative Dispute Without Following Section 156(3) CrPC Procedure: J&K&L High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
9 Oct 2026 8:35 PM IST
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot convert an administrative dispute into a criminal proceeding by directing registration of an FIR on the basis of an application which does not itself seek registration of an FIR and without following the safeguards governing exercise of power under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The Court clarified that where information placed before a Presiding Officer concerns an administrative issue, it cannot be treated as a criminal complaint merely because allegations of trespass or damage are mentioned, particularly when the statutory procedure for directing registration of an FIR has not been followed.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the then Tehsildar, Thanamandi, and Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Thanamandi, challenging an FIR registered under Sections 447-A and 427 RPC pursuant to directions issued by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Thanamandi.
Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the Magistrate, by directing registration of the FIR, “not only flouted the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Others, 2015 (6) SCC 287, but he also gave a criminal colour to a purely administrative matter.”
The dispute arose after the Chowkidar of the Munsiff Court, Thanamandi, informed the Presiding Officer that certain persons had entered the Court complex and carried out demarcation for construction of shops, allegedly damaging the barbed wire. The information stated that employees of the Tehsil office and Municipality had carried out the demarcation.
The Magistrate thereafter directed the SHO, Police Station Thanamandi, to register an FIR against the Tehsildar and Executive Officer and investigate the matter.
The petitioners contended that the complainant had neither approached the police station nor the SSP before approaching the Magistrate, as required under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC, and that the application was also not supported by an affidavit. They further submitted that they were merely acting pursuant to directions issued by the SDM, Thanamandi and Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri, concerning transfer of land acquired for a PMGSY road project.
Adjudicating the matter Justice Dhar noted that the land in question, measuring was recorded in the name of the Revenue Department but had long been in the possession of the Munsiff Court, Thanamandi.
The petitioners had been directed by senior Revenue Department officers to hand the land to a private individual whose corresponding land had been acquired for construction of a road under PMGSY. It was pursuant to these directions that demarcation of a portion of the land in the possession of the Munsiff Court was undertaken.
The Court found that the application submitted by the Chowkidar was not a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC in the strict sense. It merely brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer the alleged attempt to occupy a portion of land in the Court's possession and contained no prayer seeking registration of an FIR.
The Court observed that the application appeared to be information placed before a superior officer in an administrative capacity. In such circumstances, the appropriate course was to place the matter before the District Judge and the High Court for administrative consideration. Instead, the Magistrate treated the information as a criminal complaint and directed registration of an FIR, the court observed.
The Court held that such a course was not legally sustainable and specifically invoked the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava, which govern applications seeking directions for registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The Court consequently held that the FIR registered pursuant to the Magistrate's direction was not sustainable in law.
At the same time, the High Court did not approve the conduct of the petitioners in attempting to occupy land which had admittedly remained in the possession of the Munsiff Court for several years without bringing the matter to the notice of the Presiding Officer or the District Judge.
The Court observed that such conduct “speaks volumes about the high-handedness of the petitioners and their superior officers,” and held that the issue required to be dealt with on the administrative side.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the impugned FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom, while permitting the Registrar General of the High Court to take up the matter with the Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri, so that the underlying dispute could be resolved administratively.
Case Title: Qadeer-Ul-Rehman and Another v. State of J&K and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 450
