Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-004728-004728 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 26693/2022 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL (concurring) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing law on magistrate reference under Section 156(3) CrPC |
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The complainant alleged that private respondents colluded to forge an E-Stamp-based Rent Agreement to obtain civil orders; JMFC referred the private complaint to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC; two High Court Single Judges quashed those referrals for want of judicial mind; Supreme Court restored the FIR and directed investigation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts across India in quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC |
| Persuasive For | High Courts considering similar applications to quash police referrals |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Magistrates can refer private complaints disclosing prima facie cognizable offences to police under Section 156(3) CrPC without taking formal cognizance.
- Use of the word “further” in a referral order does not limit it to Section 173(8) post-investigation powers.
- High Courts should not prematurely quash referrals when material for investigation exists; nascent investigations deserve completion.
- Civil interim orders (e.g., status quo) do not bar criminal probe into alleged forgeries or breaches during their pendency.
- This judgment is binding on all subordinate courts and clarifies magistrates’ inherent powers vis-à-vis quashing powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Magistrate had prima facie material—alleged E-Stamp forgery and violation of a status-quo order—justifying referral under Section 156(3).
- Section 156(3) referrals occur pre-cognizance and differ from “further investigation” under Section 173(8).
- High Court misread the Magistrate’s use of “further” and overlooked binding precedents (Madhao, Ramdev).
- Civil injunction breaches during its subsistence can form the basis for criminal investigation.
- Supreme Court set aside quash orders, restored FIR, and directed expeditious investigation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Complainant):
- The Rent Agreement on E-Stamp was forged; certified-copy checks confirmed fake stamp serial number.
- Private respondents colluded to manufacture documents and obstruct justice.
- High Court ignored precedents requiring investigation when prima facie material exists; premature quashing abused process.
- Investigation was at an early stage; no prejudice in allowing completion.
Respondent No. 1 (State of Karnataka):
- Proceedings against some accused were correctly quashed; others sought parity despite differing allegations.
- Magistrate’s referral defect was curable under Section 460 CrPC; matter could have been remanded.
Private Respondents:
- Status quo on property was vacated; possession lawfully with accused.
- Civil appeal ultimately favored them; criminal complaint was abuse of process.
- No material justified maintaining referral for investigation.
Factual Background
The complainant filed a private criminal complaint alleging that respondents forged an E-Stamp-based Rent Agreement to secure civil orders over a disputed property. The JMFC, finding prima facie cognizable offences, referred the matter to police under Section 156(3) CrPC. Two Single Judges of the Karnataka High Court quashed those referrals for lack of judicial mind. The Supreme Court restored the FIR, held that magistrates may refer private complaints when prima facie material exists, and directed expeditious investigation.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 156(3) CrPC: Magistrate’s power to refer complaints disclosing cognizable offences to police pre-cognizance.
- Section 173(8) CrPC: “Further investigation” post-final report; distinct from Section 156(3).
- Section 202 CrPC: Post-cognizance inquiry to determine sufficiency of ground to proceed.
- Section 460 CrPC: Irregularities not vitiating proceedings (curable defects).
- Section 482 CrPC: High Court’s inherent power; cannot be used to stifle investigations when prima facie material exists.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed