Sadiq B. Hanchinmani vs The State of Karnataka & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

4 November 2025

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 4728 of 2025

Result

Allowed

Bench

Pankaj Mithal, Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Citation

[2025] 11 S.C.R. 246 : 2025 INSC 1282

Acts & Sections

CrPC IPC CPC Right to Information Act, 2005

Issue for consideration

Issue arose whether the direction for investigation to the police issued by the JMFC-Judicial Magistrate First Class u/s.156(3) CrPC which was quashed by the impugned orders, justified; and whether the JMFC had sufficient material before it so as to justify the course of action of referring the matter for investigation to the police invoking power u/s.156(3) of the Code, resulting in the institution of the FIR.

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.156(3), 482 – Investigation – Private complaint by the appellant-complainant before the JMFC-Judicial Magistrate First Class against the accused-private respondents u/ss.120B, 201, 419, 471, 468 and

420 IPC – Appellant alleged that the accused persons executed Rent Agreement and E-Stamp Paper which was fake to illegally claim possession over certain property – Complaint filed before the JMFC and JMFC referred the matter for investigation to the Police Station – FIR was registered against accused persons for offences punishable u/ss.120B, 201, 419, 471, 468 and 420 IPC, and investigation was undertaken – Accused persons filed petitions u/s.482 CrPC to quash the Order passed by the JMFC insofar as it related to the respective accused – High Court allowed the same – Correctness:

Held: JMFC’s Order cannot be faulted – Enough material available to justify a full-fledged investigation by the police – JMFC rightly referred the matter for investigation to the police since a prima facie case stood made out against the accused, in view of the material that was available with the JMFC – High Court vide the First Impugned Order, seems to have been unduly swayed by the usage of the term ‘further’ by the JMFC – JMFC had referred the matter to police u/s.156(3) of the Code, and the usage of ‘further’ was not in the context of s.173(8) CrPC, which fine distinction the First Impugned Order has glossed over – Instant case demonstrate material showing the commission of cognizable offences, on the face of it, which would merit police investigation – Thus, interdiction of the impugned orders necessitated – On an overall circumspection of the facts and circumstances of the case, the material on record, the First and Second impugned orders set aside – FIR restored – Police to investigate the case expeditiously in accordance with law. [Paras 38-43]

Judgment Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted in both petitions. 3. The instant criminal appeals, at the instance of the complainant, seek to assail the Final Judgments and Orders dated 18.11.2021 in CRLP No.100651/2018 [2021:KHC-D:90] (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Second Impugned Order’) and dated 24.07.2019 in CRLP No.100549/2018 [2019:KHC-D:5908] (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Impugned Order’) passed by two learned Single Judges of the High Court of Karnataka, Bench at Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’), whereby the High Court allowed t

View Subscription Plans →