Prima Facie Forgery Warrants Police Probe Magistrate’s Power Under Section 156(3) CrPC Not Defeated by Mere Use of Word ‘Further’: Supreme Court

“A Magistrate may refer complaint to police under Section 156(3) CrPC where allegations disclose cognizable offence — the use of word ‘further’ does not nullify an otherwise lawful referral” — Supreme Court. In a latest judgment that reaffirms the jurisdictional boundaries of Magistrates under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court on November 4, 2025, allowed criminal appeals and set aside the Karnataka High Court’s orders that had quashed a police investigation initiated under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Court held that the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) rightly referred a private complaint alleging forgery of an E-Stamp paper and a fabricated rent agreement for police investigation, and any irregularity in the wording of the referral was curable under Section 460 CrPC.

The Court emphasised that “when a Magistrate finds that the complaint discloses cognizable offence(s), the referral for investigation under Section 156(3) is not only permissible, it is often necessary to avoid judicial delays.”

The E-Stamp Forgery Allegation in Civil Proceedings

The dispute stemmed from a civil suit (O.S. No. 43/2009) filed by the complainant, Sadiq B. Hanchinmani, seeking a declaration of ownership over immovable property allegedly gifted orally by his father. The suit was dismissed in 2013, and an appeal was filed before the High Court of Karnataka (R.F.A. No. 4095/2013), which passed an interim status quo order on possession and title of the property.

However, during the pendency of that appeal, the complainant discovered that accused no.1 (Veena) had allegedly forcibly entered the property, and then, in defence of contempt proceedings filed against her for violating the interim order, produced a Rent Agreement dated 20.05.2013 on E-Stamp paper, claiming the property was let out to accused no.2 before the status quo order.

Upon verification with the Inspector General of Registration, it was revealed that the E-Stamp serial number corresponded to an entirely different transaction—a sale agreement between unrelated parties. The Stamp Paper was prima facie fake, prompting the complainant to file a private criminal complaint (PCR No.1/2018) under Sections 120B, 201, 419, 420, 468, and 471 IPC before the JMFC, Belagavi.

The High Court had quashed the investigation in two stages—first in 2019, and again in 2021—holding that the JMFC had mechanically ordered “further” investigation without proper reasoning, and that such referral was impermissible unless a prior police report existed under Section 173(8) CrPC. The High Court’s interpretation hinged on the word “further” used in the Magistrate’s referral order.

However, the Supreme Court decisively rejected this reasoning.

“The High Court was unduly swayed by the word ‘further’. The JMFC’s order clearly invoked Section 156(3) CrPC for initiating investigation, not continuing an existing one. The referral was not hit by Section 173(8) and does not amount to taking cognizance,” held the Court [Para 39].

Citing Madhao v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 615, and Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439, the bench clarified that:

“Where allegations in a private complaint disclose cognizable offences and referral to police would serve the ends of justice, the Magistrate is justified in invoking Section 156(3) CrPC before taking cognizance.” [Para 37–38]

The Court further observed:

“The JMFC, in referring the complaint to police, had complied with the mandatory procedural safeguards laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP, (2015) 6 SCC 287. Therefore, the High Court’s finding that there was non-application of mind is incorrect.” [Para 38]

“Forgery of Stamp Paper Cannot Be Brushed Aside at Threshold”: Supreme Court’s Reasoning on Merits

The Supreme Court examined the crucial factual link—that the E-Stamp serial number used in the Rent Agreement was already used in an unrelated Sale Agreement.

“It is clear that the Rent Agreement produced before the High Court was shown on an E-Stamp Paper already used in an unconnected sale transaction. This is a serious allegation which justifies police investigation,” the Court observed [Para 35].

Further, the Court noted the internal contradiction in the accused’s own defence:

“Even assuming that the accused no.2 carried out renovation as claimed, the lease agreement itself prohibited alteration without written consent. No such consent was shown. This strengthens the inference of violation of the High Court’s status quo order and use of a fabricated document,” the Court held [Para 36].

The Apex Court reiterated that even if the status quo order was later vacated, its breach while in force could still attract legal consequences, citing Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan, (1998) 7 SCC 59 [Para 36].

Judicial Review Under Section 482 CrPC: High Court’s Overreach

The Supreme Court criticised the High Court for premature interference with the investigation process under Section 482 CrPC, especially when prima facie cognizable offences were disclosed.

Quoting Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Court restated:

“When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the accused, the Court only needs to assess whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence — it is not required to evaluate evidence or test the probability of conviction.” [Para 42]

The Court stressed that police must be allowed to complete investigation and criminal proceedings should not be stifled based on preliminary objections:

“The facts are not so crystal clear that they should be interdicted at the very threshold. There is no cause to pre-empt the statutory process,” it said [Para 41].

Investigation Restored — High Court’s Orders Set Aside

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Karnataka High Court’s orders dated 24.07.2019 and 18.11.2021, and restored the FIR (Crime No.12/2018) at Khade Bazar Police Station. The investigating agency was directed to proceed expeditiously, and all observations made by the Court were clarified to be limited to the determination of legality of referral under Section 156(3) CrPC.

“The material on record merited police investigation. The Magistrate exercised jurisdiction correctly. The High Court’s interference was legally untenable,” concluded the Court [Para 43].

Date of Decision: November 4, 2025