The power of a Magistrate to direct the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) when a private complaint discloses a cognizable offence lies at the very heart of the criminal justice system. The recent Supreme Court judgment in Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (@SLP (Crl.) No.11336 of 2022 and Diary No.39619 of 2022, decided on 4 November 2025) has provided much-needed clarity on this issue.
The Court, speaking through Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Pankaj Mithal, reaffirmed the principle that when a Magistrate finds prima facie material indicating a cognizable offence, they may direct the police to investigate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, and such a direction cannot be interfered with lightly by higher courts.
This ruling emphasises that judicial discretion exercised at the pre-cognizance stage—when the Magistrate refers a private complaint to the police—is both lawful and necessary for the effective administration of criminal justice.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Sadiq B. Hanchinmani, had filed a private complaint (PCR No.1/2018) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Belagavi, alleging offences under Sections 120B, 201, 419, 471, 468, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The allegations revolved around the fabrication of a fake e-stamp paper and a forged rent agreement that were allegedly produced before the Karnataka High Court in pending civil proceedings concerning disputed property.
The appellant had earlier instituted a civil suit (O.S. No.43/2009) claiming ownership of property based on an oral gift and challenging a sale deed executed by his father. The suit was dismissed, and an appeal (R.F.A. No.4095/2013) was filed before the High Court, where a status quo order was granted. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant discovered that the accused had allegedly trespassed into the property and fabricated a backdated rent agreement using a counterfeit e-stamp paper to justify their possession.
When the police failed to act on the appellant’s complaint, he approached the Magistrate. Upon perusal of the complaint and supporting documents, the JMFC referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to registration of FIR No.12/2018 at Khade Bazar Police Station, Belagavi.
However, the Karnataka High Court quashed the Magistrate’s order on petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC, holding that the JMFC had not applied its mind before ordering an investigation. The complainant thus approached the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court identified two principal questions for consideration:
- Whether the Magistrate’s direction to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC was justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
- Whether the Magistrate had sufficient material before him to invoke his power under Section 156(3) and direct registration of an FIR.
Legal Framework: Section 156(3) CrPC (Section 175 BNSS)
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation in a cognizable case:
“Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned.”
This provision lies at the pre-cognizance stage—before the Magistrate formally takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a). If a private complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the Magistrate has two options:
- Take cognizance of the offence and proceed under Chapter XV (Sections 200–203 CrPC) [now Chapter XVI, Sections 223-226 of BNSS]; or
- Order investigation by the police under Section 156(3) CrPC.
This discretion ensures that the police perform their statutory duty to investigate serious allegations, sparing the Magistrate from unnecessary preliminary inquiry when police intervention is more appropriate.
Findings and Observations of the Court
1. Validity of Magistrate’s Order
The Supreme Court held that the JMFC’s order dated 18 January 2018 could not be faulted. The Magistrate had ample material to justify referring the matter to the police for investigation. The private complaint, supported by documentary evidence, prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offences such as forgery and cheating.
The Court emphasised that the JMFC had specifically recorded compliance with the guidelines laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287, which require the complainant to file an affidavit verifying the allegations and to demonstrate that the police had failed to act before invoking Section 156(3).
Thus, the Magistrate’s order directing investigation was a conscious exercise of judicial discretion, not a mechanical act.
2. Misinterpretation by the High Court
The High Court had quashed the FIR primarily on the ground that the Magistrate’s order used the word “further” investigation, implying it was a continuation under Section 173(8) CrPC/ Section 193 BNSS. The Supreme Court clarified that this was a semantic misreading—the JMFC’s intent was clearly to order a fresh investigation under Section 156(3), not a post-charge-sheet reinvestigation.
The Court noted that such minor linguistic errors cannot invalidate an otherwise lawful judicial act, particularly when the intent and substance of the order are clear.
3. Cognizable Offence Requirement
Reiterating the principle laid down in Madhao v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 615, the Bench observed that:
“When a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts disclose a cognizable offence. The Magistrate may, in his discretion, forward the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) if it will serve the ends of justice and save valuable judicial time.”
Thus, once a complaint reveals a prima facie cognizable offence, the Magistrate is not only empowered but obliged to direct police investigation.
4. Reliance on Precedents
The Court cited a line of authorities that delineate the distinction between pre-cognizance investigation under Section 156(3) and post-cognizance inquiry under Section 202:
- Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. Narayana Reddy (1976) 3 SCC 252
- Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (2015) 6 SCC 439
- Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala (2023) 18 SCC 730
In Ramdev Food Products, the Supreme Court held that a Magistrate may direct an investigation under Section 156(3) when, upon applying his mind, he considers that an immediate police inquiry is warranted. This is distinct from Section 202, which applies after cognizance is taken, merely to assist the Magistrate in determining whether process should issue.
5. The Role of Judicial Mind
A significant portion of the Supreme Court’s reasoning rested on the importance of the application of the mind by the Magistrate. The Court found that the JMFC had explicitly perused the complaint, found it credible, and recorded satisfaction that it disclosed cognizable offences. Therefore, the High Court erred in assuming non-application of mind.
6. Doctrine of Irregularity under Section 460 CrPC (Section 506 BNSS)
Even if there had been any procedural irregularity, the Court held, the case would fall within Section 460 of the CrPC, which protects proceedings from being set aside merely because the Magistrate was not empowered to perform a certain act, provided it was done in good faith.
Thus, the High Court should have treated any such error as curable rather than fatal.
7. Principle of Non-Interference with Investigation
Relying on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Court reiterated that:
“If the facts are hazy and investigation has just begun, the High Court must be circumspect in exercising its powers and must permit the investigating agency to proceed further with its statutory duty.”
The Bench observed that at the stage of quashing, courts are not to evaluate the merits of the allegations but only to see whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offence. The High Court’s interference, therefore, was premature and unjustified.
Judgment and Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s orders dated 24 July 2019 and 18 November 2021, and restored FIR No.12/2018 registered at Khade Bazar Police Station, Belagavi.
The Court directed the police to complete the investigation expeditiously in accordance with the law. It also clarified that its observations were confined to the question of law and would not prejudice the parties during the investigation or trial.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. State of Karnataka & Ors. stands as a robust reaffirmation of the Magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) CrPC to direct the registration of an FIR whenever a complaint reveals a cognizable offence. The Court struck a delicate balance between judicial oversight and investigative autonomy, ensuring that genuine grievances reach the threshold of investigation without undue procedural obstruction.
By setting aside the High Court’s hyper-technical approach, the Supreme Court restored faith in the principle that form must not triumph over substance. Ultimately, this decision fortifies the role of Magistrates as the first line of judicial accountability in criminal justice—guardians who can ensure that justice begins with investigation and not inertia.