Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah on Tuesday (November 4) held that when a complaint discloses the commission of an offence, a magistrate is empowered to direct the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). Setting aside the Karnataka High Court’s decision that had quashed an FIR arising from such a direction, the Court upheld the magistrate’s order to initiate police investigation, observing that at the pre-cognizance stage the magistrate’s role is limited to determining whether the complaint reveals a cognizable offence.

The matter arose from a private complaint filed by the complainant before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belagavi, alleging offences under Sections 120B, 201, 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint stated that the accused persons, acting in collusion, had fabricated a rent agreement using a forged e-stamp paper to claim possession of a property that was the subject of a pending civil dispute. The complainant had earlier filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership based on an alleged oral gift, which was dismissed, leading to a pending appeal before the High Court of Karnataka.

Also Read: SC Issues Notice on PIL Challenging Rajasthan’s 2025 Anti-Conversion Law; Petition Alleges Unconstitutional Powers of Demolition and Property Confiscation

During the pendency of that appeal, the complainant discovered that the accused had broken open the locks of the disputed property and commenced renovation. Upon verification from the Department of Stamps and Registration, it was revealed that the e-stamp paper used for the rent agreement was fake and originally issued for an unrelated sale transaction between third parties. The Magistrate, finding prima facie grounds of cognizable offences, directed the police to investigate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to registration of an FIR.

The High Court of Karnataka later quashed the FIR, holding that the Magistrate had not applied his mind before referring the complaint for investigation. The complainant then approached the Supreme Court challenging the quashing orders, asserting that the High Court ignored clear evidence of forgery and the Inspector General of Registration’s report confirming the e-stamp’s falsity. The State of Karnataka supported the complainant’s view, contending that the Magistrate’s direction to investigate was valid, while the accused argued that the case stemmed from a civil dispute and that the complainant had acted with ulterior motives.

The Bench observed that “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.” It stated that a Magistrate has discretion to refer such a complaint for investigation if doing so would “be conducive to justice and save valuable time of the Court.” Citing Madhao v State of Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 615, the Court recorded that the power under Section 156(3) of the Code may be exercised “before he takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a),” and that once cognizance is taken, the Magistrate cannot revert to the pre-cognizance stage.

The Court then 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.”

Referring to Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v State of Gujarat (2015) 6 SCC 439, the Bench recorded that “a direction under Section 156(3) is to be issued only after application of mind by the Magistrate” and that where the information available shows a cognizable offence, “such a direction is issued.” The judgment also referred to Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v State of Kerala (2023) 18 SCC 730, noting that the High Court was “unduly swayed by the usage of the term ‘further’ by the Magistrate,” and clarified that the expression did not refer to a “further investigation” under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

The Court cited Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401, observing that “if the facts are hazy and the investigation has just begun, the High Court would be circumspect in exercising such powers and must permit the investigating agency to proceed further.” It recorded that “the case(s) at hand demonstrate material showing the commission of cognizable offences, on the face of it, which would merit police investigation.” The Bench concluded that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR, necessitating restoration of the investigation in accordance with law.

Also Read: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over Five-Year Delay, Cites Lack of Proximate Link Between Offence and Custody

The Court directed: “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. The appeals stand allowed as indicated above. Pending applications stand closed. In the circumstances, however, we propose no order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. Divija Mahajan, Adv. Ms. Nishi Singh, Adv. Ms. Shweta Priyadarshini, AOR Mr. Shikhar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shubham V. Gawande, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Prateek Chadha, A.A.G.(argued by) Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR, Mrs. Barathi Raju, Adv. Ms. Vasundhara Raju, Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv. Mrs. C Rubavathi, Adv.

Case Title: Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v The State of Karnataka & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1282
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.11336 of 2022)
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah