‘Anyone Can Set Criminal Law in Motion’: Supreme Court Upholds FIR by Gram Pradhan in Land Dispute

The Supreme Court recently set aside an Allahabad High Court order that had quashed criminal proceedings on the ground that a Gram Pradhan was not authorised to lodge an FIR over a land dispute, holding instead that any citizen may initiate criminal law unless a statute expressly bars them.

Allowing an appeal filed by Lal Chandra Ram, a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale restored the Special Judge’s order taking cognizance of offences against four accused, stating that the High Court had committed a “manifest error in law” by importing civil-law restrictions into a criminal prosecution.

The case arose from an FIR registered in 2023 at the instance of the local Gram Pradhan. The police, after investigation, filed a chargesheet for offences of rioting, assault, intimidation and abuse under the Indian Penal Code, along with charges under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The Special Judge subsequently summoned the accused after taking cognizance of these offences.

The accused challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court in 2024, arguing that the Gram Pradhan lacked the authority to lodge the FIR since the land in question fell under the administrative domain of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti or the Lekhpal under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Accepting this contention, the High Court held that only the authorities named under Sections 67 and 136 of the Revenue Code could initiate action, and therefore the entire criminal proceedings were vitiated. It quashed the Special Judge’s summoning order in September 2024.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the High Court’s reasoning. Emphasising the long-settled principle that “anyone can set the criminal law into motion,” the bench pointed out that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not restrict who may file a complaint unless a special statute explicitly provides otherwise.

Citing judgments including Dr Subramanian Swamy v. Dr Manmohan Singh (2012), court reaffirmed that a criminal proceeding cannot be nullified merely because the complainant does not belong to a particular office or authority unless the statute demands it.

Crucially, the bench noted that the Revenue Code provisions relied on by the High Court are civil in nature and deal with issues such as ascertaining damages or ejecting trespassers. These provisions, court held, operate “in a totally different context” and have no bearing on a criminal prosecution for mischief involving public property.

Since the chargesheet also invoked the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, court observed that the Act contains no requirement that only certain authorities may lodge a complaint. None of the statutory provisions forming the basis of the charges restrict the eligibility of an informant, court pointed out. 

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had therefore erred in concluding that the FIR was without competence and that the Special Judge’s cognizance was bad in law. Court restored the criminal proceedings by setting aside the High Court’s 24 September 2024 order in full. “We are of the opinion that the High Court manifestly erred in law,” the bench said, allowing the appeal.

Case Title: Lal Chandra Ram Vs State of UP & Ors 

Judgment Date: November 18, 2025

Bench: Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale