Prima facie inquiry under Section 476 must assess each person's role before any criminal complaint is directed.

Proceedings under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act could supply a foundation for action under Section 476 CrPC because documents filed in the redemption proceeding came before the court and were treated as suspected forgeries. Section 476A was also applicable after the earlier matter had been dropped, since the prior refusal was not a merits-based rejection and the amended procedure created a fresh basis for action. However, a complaint could not be directed against all petitioners mechanically; the court had to conduct its own inquiry and form a prima facie view on the involvement, knowledge, and complicity of each person before making any complaint.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether proceedings under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 could furnish the basis for action under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) whether the Sessions Judge could proceed under Section 476A of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the earlier proceedings had been dropped; and (iii) whether a complaint could be directed against all petitioners without considering the prima facie case against each individual.

Issue (i): whether proceedings under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 could furnish the basis for action under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The documents filed with the redemption application were placed before the Court in connection with a proceeding before it and were relied on to support the petitioners' claim. Even if filing them was not strictly necessary, they came to the notice of the Court in relation to the proceeding and were treated as suspected forgeries. The Court was therefore competent to consider action under Section 476.

Conclusion: The basis for action under Section 476 was available.

Issue (ii): whether the Sessions Judge could proceed under Section 476A of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the earlier proceedings had been dropped.

Analysis: The earlier refusal to act under the unamended law was not a rejection on the merits. After amendment of the Code, the obstacle that had prevented action earlier no longer existed, and the later approach to the Sessions Judge was treated as a fresh invocation of the amended procedure rather than an incompetent appeal against the dropped proceedings. Section 476A was held applicable because the subordinate court had not made a complaint and had not rejected an application on merits.

Conclusion: The Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to act under Section 476A.

Issue (iii): whether a complaint could be directed against all petitioners without considering the prima facie case against each individual.

Analysis: Section 476 requires the Court itself to make the necessary inquiry and to be satisfied that a prima facie case exists before making a complaint. It does not contemplate sending the matter to the Magistrate for inquiry into whether an offence has been committed. Where many persons are involved, the Court must examine the complicity and knowledge of each person separately, especially where some are minors, some are not signatories, and others may not have been aware of the documents' character.

Conclusion: The collective order against all petitioners could not stand, and individualized inquiry was required before any complaint could be made.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was sent back for further inquiry into the individual involvement of the petitioners before any complaint could be laid.

Ratio Decidendi: Before making a complaint under Section 476, the Court must itself satisfy that there is a prima facie case against each person concerned after such inquiry as is necessary, and it cannot mechanically forward all accused persons for Magistrate's inquiry.

---