The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment dated November 4, 2025, restored a First Information Report (FIR) that had been quashed by the Karnataka High Court. The apex court held that the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) was justified in ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) based on a private complaint, as there was “enough material available to justify a full-fledged investigation” into allegations of forgery, specifically the use of a fake E-Stamp Paper in judicial proceedings.
The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah in criminal appeals filed by the complainant, Sadiq B. Hanchinmani.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a private complaint (PCR No.1/2018) filed by the appellant before the JMFC-III Court, Belagavi, alleging offences under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence), 419 (cheating by personation), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), and 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
This complaint was rooted in a civil dispute. The appellant had filed a suit (O.S. No.43/2009) seeking a declaration of ownership of a suit property based on an oral gift from his father, and to declare a Sale Deed dated 03.02.2009, executed by his father in favour of accused no.1 (Veena), as illegal and void. The suit was dismissed on 28.03.2013.
The appellant preferred an appeal (R.F.A. No.4095/2013) before the High Court. On 03.06.2013, the High Court passed an interim order to maintain status quo regarding the title and possession of the suit property.
During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant alleged that on 18.06.2015 and 18.10.2015, accused nos. 1 and 2, along with others, broke open the lock, trespassed, and began renovation work, violating the status quo order. The appellant then filed an application (I.A.No.1/2015) seeking contempt proceedings.
In reply to this contempt application, accused no.1 produced a document styled as a “Rent Agreement” embossed on an E-Stamp Paper dated 20.05.2013 (i.e., prior to the status quo order), purportedly executed by accused no.1 in favour of accused no.2.
The appellant alleged this Rent Agreement was fabricated. Upon verification with the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps, the appellant claimed the E-Stamp Paper was fake, as a certified copy of a Stamp Paper with the same serial number revealed it was used for a different transaction.
Following this, the appellant filed the private complaint. The JMFC, by Order dated 18.01.2018, referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. Consequently, FIR Crime No.12/2018 was registered at Khade Bazar Police Station.
The accused-private respondents subsequently filed petitions under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The High Court, through two separate orders (dated 24.07.2019 and 18.11.2021), allowed the petitions and quashed the criminal proceedings. These quashing orders were challenged by the complainant in the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellant argued that the E-Stamp Paper was fake, a fact supported by a report from the Inspector General of Registration. It was contended that the accused, in collusion, “concocted, forged, fabricated and manufactured the document” (para 17) to mislead the High Court and gain possession. The appellant submitted that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR at a “nascent stage” (para 23) and overlooked the principles laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401.
The counsel for the State of Karnataka submitted that the High Court erred in granting parity to all accused, as allegations differed. It was also argued that the JMFC’s order referring the matter for investigation, even if irregular, was a “curable defect” under Section 460 of the Code and did not vitiate the proceedings (para 28).
The private respondents supported the High Court’s Impugned Orders, submitting that the appellant had an “ulterior motive” (para 32) and that the civil appeal (RFA) concerning the property was ultimately decided in their favour.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court, in its analysis, identified the Rent Agreement as the “turning point in the present cases” (para 35). The Court noted the specific E-Stamp Paper (bearing no. IN-KA82473995873571L dated 20.05.2013) produced by accused no.1.
The judgment states: “This document upon verification by the appellant… from the Inspector General of Registration… reveals that the said E-Stamp Paper Number with the same date of registration related to a Sale Agreement between one J.D. Duradundi and one S.B. Janagouda.” (para 35).
The Court concluded: “Thus, it is clear that the Rent Agreement produced before the High Court was shown on the E-Stamp Paper was used by the aforesaid persons for a Sale Agreement, unconnected to accused nos.1 and 2 or to any Rent Agreement.” (para 35).
The judgment also noted, referencing Samee Khan v Bindu Khan, (1998) 7 SCC 59, that “even if an injunction order is subsequently set aside, consequences for breach/violation of the same when it subsisted, could still befall upon the violator” (para 36).
Based on the prima facie forgery, the Supreme Court held that the JMFC’s Order dated 18.01.2018 “cannot be faulted.” The bench observed: “Enough material is available to justify a full-fledged investigation by the police. The JMFC, to our mind, had rightly referred the matter for investigation to the police since a prima facie case stood made out against the accused…” (para 38).
The Supreme Court also addressed the High Court’s reasoning for quashing the FIR, particularly the finding in the First Impugned Order that the JMFC erred by using the term “further investigation.” The Supreme Court found the High Court was “unduly swayed by the usage of the term ‘further'” (para 39).
Quoting the JMFC’s actual order, the Supreme Court clarified: “The afore-extract leaves no room of doubt 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.” (para 40).
Relying on Neeharika Infrastructure (supra), the Court reiterated that when allegations in an FIR disclose a cognizable offence, the High Court “has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” (para 42).
The Decision
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court held: “Thus, 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.” (para 43).
The appeals were allowed, and FIR Crime No.12 of 2018, Khade Bazar Police Station, was restored. The police were directed to “investigate the case expeditiously in accordance with law.” (para 43). The Court clarified that its observations were only for deciding the present issue and would not prejudice the parties in any pending proceedings.
