MP High Court Declines To Quash FIR In Case Relating To Non-Publication Of Book Prices And Seller Details

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Kangaroo Kids International Preschool, Gwalior, challenging a show-cause notice and an FIR registered against its Director for alleged non-compliance with directions requiring disclosure of prescribed books, their prices, and seller details.

Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke held that a school operating under a franchise model cannot evade statutory and regulatory responsibilities by attributing control of its website or educational material to its franchisor. The Court observed that compliance with lawful directions issued by competent authorities remains the responsibility of the institution that admits students and conducts educational activities.

The petition was filed by Kangaroo Kids International Preschool, Gwalior, and Palakk Academy of Learning Private Limited, which owns and operates the preschool. The petitioners sought quashing of a show-cause notice dated March 26, 2026, as well as all consequential actions, including an FIR registered as Crime No. 101/2026 for an offence under Section 223(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860).

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Tej Singh Mahadik argued that the FIR had been registered without properly considering the school's reply to the show-cause notice. According to the petitioners, the notice was issued following directions from the Collector requiring educational institutions to publish details relating to books, rates and sellers. The school had submitted a reply on March 27, 2026, explaining its position, but the authorities allegedly proceeded to register the FIR without adjudicating upon the explanation furnished.

The petitioners contended that the Gwalior preschool functions only as a franchise unit of Kangaroo Kids International Preschool and does not operate or control an independent website. They argued that the common website used by franchise institutions is exclusively managed by Lighthouse Learning Private Limited, which owns the copyright over the platform. It was therefore submitted that the preschool had neither authority nor control over the website's content and could not independently publish the information sought by the authorities.

The petitioners further claimed that the educational material used by the institution is developed, published and copyrighted by the franchise headquarters and supplied through authorised vendors. As a franchisee, the school asserted that it had no role in the publication, pricing, printing or sale of such material and therefore could not be held responsible for the alleged non-disclosure.

However, the Court found little merit in these submissions. After examining the record, Justice Phadke noted that the Collector's directions had been issued to ensure transparency and address complaints concerning arbitrary sale of educational material by schools. The Court observed that the petitioners' reply to the show-cause notice did not contain any satisfactory explanation regarding compliance with those directions.

Rejecting the defence based on the school's franchise status, the Court observed that "merely because the petitioners are functioning as franchisees does not absolve them of their statutory and regulatory obligations qua the institution being operated by them."

The Court emphasised that students are admitted into the institution managed by the petitioners and that all educational activities are carried out under their supervision. Consequently, responsibility for complying with lawful directions issued by authorities could not be shifted to website developers or franchise operators.

Justice Phadke described the explanation offered by the school as "wholly vague, evasive, and misconceived." The Court further noted that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate any concrete steps taken to comply with the Collector's directions and that the explanation appeared to be "nothing but an attempt to evade responsibility."

The Court also declined to interfere with the ongoing investigation, reiterating that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not ordinarily exercised to halt investigations unless there is a clear abuse of process or patent illegality. No such exceptional circumstances were found in the present case.

The petitioners had relied on a Division Bench judgment delivered in Writ Appeal No. 1778 of 2024. However, the Court held that the decision arose from entirely different facts and did not assist the petitioners.

Holding that no case for quashing the show-cause notice or consequential proceedings was made out, the Court dismissed the writ petition as being devoid of merit.

Case Title: Kangaroo Kids International Pre School and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: May 7, 2026

Bench: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke