The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate’s referral under Section 156(3) CrPC for police investigation is justified when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence and such a direction is conducive to justice. The High Court’s orders quashing the referral were set aside, emphasizing that the police must be allowed to investigate prima facie allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, Sadiq B. Hanchinmani, filed a civil suit claiming ownership of a property via an oral gift from his father, challenging a registered sale deed in favour of accused No. 1, Veena. The suit was dismissed in 2013. During the pendency of his appeal (RFA No. 4095/2013) before the High Court, a status quo order on the property’s title and possession was initially granted but later vacated. In related contempt proceedings, Veena produced a Rent Agreement dated 20.05.2013 on an E-Stamp Paper, claiming she had leased the property to accused No. 2 before the status quo order. Suspecting forgery, the appellant discovered through official channels that the E-Stamp Paper was fake. He subsequently filed a private complaint before the JMFC, which referred the matter to police for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to an FIR for offences including forgery and cheating. The High Court, however, quashed this referral order in two separate petitions filed by the accused, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The procedural history commenced with the appellant filing a private complaint (PCR No. 1/2018) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) in Belagavi. The JMFC, by order dated 18.01.2018, referred the complaint for police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), leading to the registration of FIR Crime No. 12/2018. The accused persons then filed petitions under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, seeking to quash the proceedings. The High Court allowed these petitions, quashing the JMFC’s referral order through two separate judgments: the first impugned order dated 24.07.2019 (in CRLP No. 100549/2018) and the second impugned order dated 18.11.2021 (in CRLP No. 100651/2018). Aggrieved by these orders, the complainant filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, which granted leave and heard the resultant criminal appeals, culminating in the present judgment.
READ ALSO:Understanding the Supreme Court’s Verdict on Interstate Bus Permits and State Schemes
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the Magistrate, upon receiving a complaint that discloses a cognizable offence, is fully justified in directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC if such a course is conducive to justice, as established in Madhao v. State of Maharashtra. It found that the JMFC’s order was based on sufficient prima facie material, including evidence suggesting the fabrication of a Rent Agreement on a fake E-Stamp Paper, which warranted a full-fledged police investigation. The Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the referral by misinterpreting the term “further investigation” and by prematurely examining the merits of the allegations at the initial stage, contrary to the principles reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which mandate that an FIR should not be thwarted when it discloses a cognizable offence.