Magistrates need not conduct mini-trials at the stage of Section 156(3). Once prima facie evidence indicates a cognizable offence, the matter must proceed to police investigation.
I. Introduction
In Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2025 INSC 1282 (decided on November 4, 2025), the Supreme Court of India revisited the contours of a Magistrate’s powers under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), and reaffirmed that allegations involving the fabrication or forgery of public documents warrant police investigation rather than summary dismissal as civil disputes.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah allowed the appeals filed by the complainant, Sadiq B. Hanchinmani, setting aside two orders of the Karnataka High Court that had quashed an FIR and directed the restoration of the criminal investigation into the alleged use of a fake e-stamp paper.
II. Factual Matrix
The controversy arose out of a property dispute in Belagavi, Karnataka. The appellant, Sadiq B. Hanchinmani, claimed ownership of the suit property based on an alleged oral gift from his father. His civil suit (O.S. No. 43/2009) seeking a declaration of ownership was dismissed on 28 March 2013, leading to the filing of a Regular First Appeal (R.F.A. No. 4095/2013) before the Karnataka High Court.
During the pendency of the appeal, the High Court, by an interim order dated 3 June 2013, directed both parties to maintain status quo regarding possession and title of the property. However, the appellant later alleged that the respondents—Veena (accused no.1) and her husband Chandrumal M. Parchani (accused no.2)—forcibly entered the property and commenced renovation work.
In contempt proceedings filed by Sadiq, accused no.1 produced a “Rent Agreement” purportedly executed on E-Stamp Paper dated 20 May 2013 to justify possession. Upon verification, it emerged that the e-stamp paper’s serial number (IN-KA82473995873571L) was in fact issued for an unrelated sale transaction between J.D. Duradundi and S.B. Janagouda, not for the rent agreement in question.
Consequently, Sadiq filed a private complaint under Sections 120B, 201, 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), alleging conspiracy and forgery. The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Belagavi, referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, resulting in the registration of Crime No. 12/2018 at Khade Bazar Police Station.
The accused successfully challenged this order before the High Court of Karnataka, which in two separate orders dated 24 July 2019 and 18 November 2021 quashed the proceedings, holding that the Magistrate had failed to apply judicial mind and that the dispute was essentially civil in nature.
III. Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Court formulated two central questions:
-
Whether the JMFC’s direction to investigate under Section 156(3) CrPC, later quashed by the High Court, was legally justified.
-
Whether there was sufficient material before the Magistrate to warrant such a referral to the police for investigation.
IV. The Supreme Court’s Analysis
(A) Prima Facie Evidence of Forgery
The Bench noted that the E-Stamp Paper used for the Rent Agreement was demonstrably fake, as official records from the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps, Karnataka, confirmed that the same serial number corresponded to another transaction. This, the Court held, constituted prima facie evidence of forgery:
“It is clear that the Rent Agreement produced before the High Court was shown on an E-Stamp Paper that had already been used by other persons for a Sale Agreement… Thus, it is clear that the Rent Agreement was fabricated and falsely produced before the High Court.” [¶35]
(B) Scope of Section 156(3) CrPC
The Court reaffirmed that a Magistrate possesses wide discretion to direct police investigation prior to taking cognizance. Referring to Madhao v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 615, it observed:
“If on a reading of the complaint, the Magistrate finds that the allegations disclose a cognizable offence and that forwarding the complaint to the police for investigation will be conducive to justice, he will be justified in adopting that course.” [¶37]
The Bench emphasized that the Magistrate’s order was made at the pre-cognizance stage and thus fell squarely within the ambit of Section 156(3) CrPC. The High Court’s inference that the use of the word “further” implied a post-cognizance reference under Section 173(8) was a “semantic misreading.”
(C) Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Remedies
Relying on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Supreme Court reiterated that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because civil litigation over the same subject matter exists:
“Even though a civil case concerning ownership was pending, the use of a forged document constituted a distinct criminal offence. Courts must permit the investigating agency to proceed when the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.” [¶41–42]
V. Decision and Directions
Setting aside the High Court’s orders, the Supreme Court restored the FIR (Crime No. 12/2018) and directed the Khade Bazar Police Station, Belagavi, to conduct the investigation expeditiously in accordance with law.
The Bench clarified that its findings were limited to the issue of investigation and should not prejudice the outcome of pending civil proceedings.
“The First and Second Impugned Orders dated 24.07.2019 and 18.11.2021 are set aside. FIR Crime No.12 of 2018 stands restored. The police is directed to investigate the case expeditiously in accordance with law.” [¶43]
VI. Legal Significance and Commentary
The decision in Sadiq B. Hanchinmani marks an important reaffirmation of judicial restraint in pre-emptively quashing criminal investigations under Section 482 CrPC. The Supreme Court underscored that allegations of forgery and fabrication of official documents transcend civil disputes and strike at the integrity of the justice system.
(1) Reinforcing Judicial Deference to Investigative Process
By restoring the FIR, the Court signalled that Magistrates need not conduct mini-trials at the stage of Section 156(3). Once prima facie evidence indicates a cognizable offence, the matter must proceed to police investigation. This approach promotes procedural efficiency and aligns with the principle articulated in Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439, where the Court held that Section 156(3) serves as a “pre-emptory reminder” to the police to exercise its investigative powers.
(2) Distinguishing Between Civil and Criminal Wrongs
The ruling builds upon Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, which made FIR registration mandatory for cognizable offences. Here, the Court further clarified that even if a dispute arises from civil transactions, the existence of forged or counterfeit public documents engages criminal liability and must not be dismissed as a private matter.
(3) Implications for E-Stamp Fraud Cases
With the growing use of e-stamping in property transactions, this decision has systemic implications. The Court’s reliance on verification from the Department of Stamps and Registration highlights the increasing evidentiary importance of digital authenticity and the need for state vigilance against fraudulent electronic instruments.
(4) A Check on Overreach by High Courts
The judgment subtly critiques the expansive use of Section 482 CrPC by High Courts to quash FIRs at nascent stages, echoing the caution in Neeharika Infrastructure that such interference must be “sparingly exercised” and only in cases of manifest abuse of process.
VII. Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sadiq B. Hanchinmani thus restores balance between judicial oversight and investigative autonomy. By reaffirming the Magistrate’s powers under Section 156(3) and protecting the investigative process from premature judicial intervention, the Court strengthens the criminal justice system’s ability to address fraudulent manipulation of public documents.
The judgment stands as a reminder that civil litigation cannot cloak acts of forgery or deception, and that the integrity of documentary evidence—especially in digital form—must remain sacrosanct in the eyes of the law.
Cited Authorities:
-
Madhao v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 615
-
Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439
-
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401
-
Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan, (1998) 7 SCC 59
-
Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1
-
Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala, (2023) 18 SCC 730