Supreme Court restores FIR and directs police to investigate alleged forged e‑stamp in property dispute

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard appeals by the complainant challenging two Single‑Judge orders of the Karnataka High Court which had quashed a Judicial Magistrate’s referral for police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. The appeals arose from allegations that respondents produced a forged E‑stamp and a fabricated rent agreement in pending civil litigation to secure possession of disputed property and sought restoration of the FIR registered at Khade Bazar Police Station.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court orders dated 24.07.2019 and 18.11.2021 and restored FIR Crime No.12/2018, directing the police to investigate expeditiously in accordance with law. The Court held that the JMFC had sufficient prima facie material to refer the complaint for investigation and that the High Court had erred in treating the Magistrate’s direction as vitiated merely by use of the word “further”. The Court emphasized established principles governing the exercise of power under Section 156(3) and the distinction between pre‑cognizance directions for investigation and post‑cognizance procedures. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “22. Thus, we answer the first question by holding that: 22.1. The direction under Section 156(3) is to be issued, only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone the issuance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued. 22.2. The cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine “existence of sufficient ground to proceed”. Category of cases falling under para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari may fall under Section 202. 22.3. Subject to these broad guidelines available from the scheme of the Code, exercise of discretion by the Magistrate is guided by interest of justice from case to case.” The Court further noted the High Court’s earlier criticism that “the court has not applied its mind and it is not sustainable in the eye of law,” but concluded that the Magistrate had in fact recorded material warranting police inquiry.

Background

The dispute originated from a civil suit (O.S. No.43/2009) in Belagavi in which the appellant claimed title by oral gift and challenged a registered sale deed executed by his father; that suit was dismissed and an RFA (No.4095/2013) remained pending. While an interim status‑quo order was in force, the appellant alleged that accused‑respondents broke open the lock and undertook renovation and, subsequently, produced a rent/lease agreement dated 20.05.2013 on an E‑stamp as a defence in the civil proceedings. The appellant obtained certified records from the Department of Stamps and Registration and contended the E‑stamp was fake; the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps reported prima facie that the E‑stamp was not genuine and the District Registrar directed police complaints.

The appellant filed a private criminal complaint under Sections 120B, 201, 419, 471, 468 and 420 IPC before the JMFC, who, recording that “The complainant has complied with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Shrivastava …,” referred the matter to the Khade Bazar Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. Two Single Judges of the Karnataka High Court quashed the Magistrate’s referral, holding that the Magistrate had not applied judicial mind and that the referral was impermissible. The complainant appealed to this Court.

In determining the appeals, the Supreme Court considered precedents including Madhao v. State of Maharashtra, Ramdev Food Products v. State of Gujarat and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra to outline the limits and purpose of Section 156(3). The Court held that where prima facie material disclosed cognizable offences, the Magistrate could direct police investigation before taking formal cognizance; conversely, exceptional cases of abuse might justify stay of investigation but required brief reasons. Applying these principles, the Court found sufficient grounds for investigation and restored the FIR. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the issue before it and would not prejudice parties in subsequent proceedings; it allowed the appeals and left parties free to place defence material before the police and courts at appropriate stages.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1282 (Criminal appeals arising from SLP (Crl.) No.11336/2022 and Diary No.39619/2022) Case Title: Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. State of Karnataka & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not specified in the published extract For the Respondent(s): Counsel for the State and for private respondents appeared; specific names not indicated in the published extract