2025 (11) TMI 1086 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal allowed, FIR restored; JMFC order quashing direction under s.156(3) CrPC set aside; police to investigate.

SADIQ B. HANCHINMANI Versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS., CHNDRUMAL, SANJAY, NANDKUMAR, VIJAY, MRS. VEENA, MADHAV

SC allowed the appeal, set aside the two impugned orders quashing the JMFC's direction under s.156(3) CrPC, and restored FIR Crime No.12 of 2018. The ... Forgery, fabrication of a stamped paper - contention of the appellant is that the Rent Agreement produced by Chandrumal M. Parchani-respondent in collusion with other respondents on an E-Stamp Paper is fake - direction for investigation to the police issued by the JMFC under Section 156(3) of the Code, which was quashed by the Impugned Orders - sufficient material to justify the course of action of referring the matter for investigation to the police invoking power under Section 156(3) of the Code, resulting in the institution of the FIR or not - HELD THAT:- The JMFC had referred the matter to police under Section 156(3) of the Code, and the usage of ‘further’ was not in the context of Section 173(8) of the Code, which fine distinction the First Impugned Order has glossed over. The case(s) at hand, demonstrate material showing the commission of cognizable offence(s), on the face of it, which would merit police investigation. Therefore, interdiction of the Impugned Orders is necessitated. 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 observations made in this Judgment are only for the purposes of considering the issue(s) before us and shall neither prejudice nor aid the parties in any proceedings pending inter-se - Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Magistrate's direction to the police to investigate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was justified on the materials before the Magistrate in a private complaint alleging forgery, fabrication of a stamped paper and allied offences. 2. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the Magistrate's order directing investigation (and thereby quashing the resulting FIR) on the ground that the Magistrate had not applied judicial mind or had improperly used the word 'further'. 3. Whether parity or extension of relief to some accused based on the quashing of proceedings against others was appropriate where allegations and materials against the different accused were not identical. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to investigate alleged forgery and allied offences Legal framework: A Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may, before taking cognizance, direct the police to investigate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. where the complaint discloses a cognizable offence and investigation by police would be conducive to justice; once cognizance is taken and chapter XV procedures embark, the Magistrate cannot revert to pre-cognizance stage to invoke Section 156(3). Precedent treatment (as applied): Earlier jurisprudence distinguishing the pre-cognizance use of Section 156(3) from post-cognizance procedures was considered and applied as the correct legal yardstick; the Court endorsed that Section 156(3) may be invoked where prima facie materials disclose cognizable offences and investigation by police is required. Interpretation and reasoning: The Magistrate had before him material showing (a) production in court of an E-Stamp embossed document styled as a Rent Agreement dated 20.05.2013; (b) refusal by the registrar's records to match that E-Stamp number to the purported transaction and evidence that the same serial/number/date pertained to a distinct sale agreement; and (c) allegations of breaking locks, trespass and renovation in breach of a status-quo order. These facts, taken together, constituted prima facie material of forgery/fabrication and other cognizable offences, making police investigation appropriate and 'conducive to justice'. The Magistrate's use of the word 'further' did not convert the direction into one intended under Section 173(8); context showed invocation of Section 156(3) as a pre-cognizance referral for investigation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A Magistrate may direct police investigation under Section 156(3) where on reading the complaint and attendant materials a prima facie case of cognizable offence exists; mere terminological usage (such as the word 'further') does not vitiate the order if substance demonstrates proper pre-cognizance referral. Obiter - observations on ancillary civil procedural consequences and on remedies available to private parties during investigation. Conclusions: The direction for investigation under Section 156(3) was legally sustainable; sufficient material existed to require a police probe and the Magistrate had applied mind to refer the matter for investigation. Issue 2: High Court's power to quash investigation/FIR at an early/inchoate stage and standards to be applied Legal framework: High Court's inherent and supervisory powers permit quashing of FIRs in exceptional circumstances, but where facts are hazy and investigation is nascent the Court must ordinarily permit investigation to proceed; when considering a quashing application the Court's limited task is to consider whether the allegations on the face of the FIR/complaint disclose a cognizable offence, not to probe merits fully. Precedent treatment (as applied): The Court relied upon established principles that quashing should be sparingly exercised and that where prima facie materials disclose cognizable offences the investigating agency should be allowed to investigate; the decision followed (not overruled) prior authorities emphasizing caution and the investigating agency's statutory duty. Interpretation and reasoning: The High Court's quashing in the impugned orders was found to have erred in two respects: (a) misunderstanding the nature of the Magistrate's reference by treating 'further' as an indication of an improper post-cognizance action; and (b) prematurely curtailing the statutory investigation despite documentary irregularities and prima facie evidence indicating forgery. Given the documentary inconsistencies verified from official stamp records and the allegation of collusion to present fabricated documents to the civil court, permitting investigation was necessary to ascertain facts and ensure justice. The Court emphasized that quashing at an initial stage should not thwart legitimate investigation where cognizable material is present. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - High Court erred in quashing the Magistrate's order where prima facie material warranted police investigation; early quashing is inappropriate where the FIR/complaint discloses cognizable offences and investigation is at an inchoate stage. Obiter - specific remarks regarding conduct of civil litigation and potential consequences of vacating interim orders. Conclusions: The High Court's quashing orders were set aside; the FIR was restored and directed to be investigated expeditiously in accordance with law. Issue 3: Appropriateness of extending relief by parity to differently situated accused and curability of alleged defects in Magistrate's order Legal framework: Quashing by parity may be inappropriate where allegations and available materials against different accused are not identical; procedural irregularities by a Magistrate that are curable under provisions addressing non-vitiating irregularities should not automatically lead to quashing of meritorious proceedings. Precedent treatment (as applied): The Court recognized that some defects in Magistrate's orders fall within categories of irregularities which do not vitiate proceedings and are amenable to cure; it rejected blanket parity where roles and materials differed between accused. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that allegations against certain accused (not parties to the civil proceedings) required clarification but that available documentary evidence indicated specific culpability (e.g., purchase/use of the disputed E-Stamp by one accused). Accordingly, parity could not justify quashing as to all accused. The defect alleged in the Magistrate's order was not of a nature that would render the referral void; Section 460's principle that certain irregular acts in good faith do not void proceedings was noted as relevant to whether remand rather than quashing would be appropriate. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Relief by parity cannot be extended where the nature and strength of allegations against different accused diverge; curable irregularities should not automatically invalidate a legitimate referral for investigation. Obiter - procedural observations about remedies and the effect of civil decree outcomes on criminal liability. Conclusions: Parity was inappropriate and the High Court should not have extended quashing to all accused on the basis of quashing as to some; investigation was to be restored and conducted to determine individual culpability. Final Disposition Consequence: The High Court's impugned orders quashing the Magistrate's referral were set aside; the FIR was restored and the police directed to investigate expeditiously. Observations in the judgment were confined to the issues before the Court and declared not to prejudice the parties in other proceedings.