Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 4) observed that once the facts alleged in the complaint disclose the commission of an offence, then the magistrates are empowered to direct police to register FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C (now Section 175(3) of BNSS).

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah set aside the Karnataka High Court's decision which quashed the FIR, that was registered upon magistrate's direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Since, the facts alleged in the complaint to the magistrate discloses a commission of a cognizable offence, the Court justified the magistrate's order to direct police investigation, stating that at the pre-cognizance stage the Magistrate only needs to assess whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offense, not whether the allegations are true or substantiated.

In support, the Court referred to the case of Madhao v State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 615, where it was observed: -

“When a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint disclose the commission of an offence. The Magistrate has discretion in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint, he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence itself.”

In this case, the complainant approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) after the police failed to act on his complaint regarding a forged Rent Agreement allegedly used to mislead the High Court. Upon examining the complaint and supporting material, particularly the official verification confirming that the E-Stamp Paper was fake, the JMFC directed the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

The police, in compliance, registered an FIR for offences including forgery (Sections 468, 471 IPC), cheating (Section 420 IPC), and criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC).

However, the High Court quashed both the FIR and the Magistrate's order, holding that the direction suffered from procedural defects and that no prima facie case was established.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the complainant moved to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Amanullah criticized the High Court for interfering with the investigation at the very nascent stage, ignoring the fact that the allegations in the complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

Endorsing the magistrate's decision, the court observed:

“In the background of the factual position, the JMFC's Order dated 18.01.2018 cannot be faulted. Enough material is available to justify a full-fledged investigation by the police. The JMFC, to our mind, had rightly referred the matter for investigation to the police since a prima facie case stood made out against the accused, in view of the material that was available with the JMFC.”

Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and ordered:

“Thus, on an overall circumspection of the facts and circumstances of the case, the material on record and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the First and Second Impugned Orders dated 24.07.2019 and 18.11.2021 are set aside. FIR Crime No.12 of 2018, Khade Bazar Police Station stands restored. The police is directed to investigate the case expeditiously in accordance with law. It goes without saying that the private parties shall be at liberty to produce material to indicate their defence(s)/position during the police investigation as also before the Court concerned, in accordance with law, at the appropriate stage.”

Cause Title: SADIQ B. HANCHINMANI VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1064

Click here to download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) (in SR 11336/2022) Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv.(argued by) Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. Divija Mahajan, Adv. Ms. Nishi Singh, Adv.

(in D No.39619/2022) Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv.(argued by) Ms. Shweta Priyadarshini, AOR Mr. Shikhar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shubham V. Gawande, Adv.

For Respondent(s) (R No.1-State in both) Mr. Prateek Chadha, A.A.G.(argued by) Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR

(R-2 to 5 in SR 11336/2022)& (R-2 & 3 in D No.39619/2022) Mrs. Barathi Raju, Adv. Ms. Vasundhara Raju, Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv. Mrs. C Rubavathi, Adv.