Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2025
The ruling reiterates that truthfulness of allegations is not to be tested at the pre-cognizance stage; only the existence of a cognizable offence matters.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
4 November 2025
Judges
Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The complainant alleged that the accused had used a forged Rent Agreement to mislead the Karnataka High Court in earlier proceedings.
-
When the police failed to act on his complaint, the complainant approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking a direction to register an FIR.
-
Upon perusal of the complaint and accompanying documents, including an official verification confirming that the E-stamp paper was fake, the JMFC directed the police to register an FIR and investigate.
-
The police accordingly registered an FIR under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 120B IPC for offences of cheating, forgery, and conspiracy.
-
The Karnataka High Court, however, quashed the FIR and the Magistrate’s order, holding that the direction suffered from procedural defects and that the complaint did not disclose a prima facie offence.
-
Aggrieved by this decision, the complainant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues
-
Whether a Magistrate can direct the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC (now Section 175(3) BNSS) upon receiving a complaint that discloses a cognizable offence?
-
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR at the stage of investigation?
Held
-
The JMFC’s order directing investigation was legal and proper, as the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence.
-
The High Court erred in quashing the FIR without allowing the investigation to proceed.
-
The FIR (Crime No. 12 of 2018, Khade Bazar Police Station) was restored, and the police were directed to complete the investigation expeditiously.
-
The Court clarified that the Magistrate’s discretion under Section 156(3) CrPC / Section 175(3) BNSS is wide but judicial, to be exercised when forwarding the complaint is conducive to justice and efficient investigation.
Analysis
-
The judgment reaffirms the scope and intent of Section 156(3) CrPC (now Section 175(3) BNSS) — ensuring that magistrates can direct investigations where the complaint reveals a cognizable offence, even before taking cognizance.
-
The Court relied on Madhao v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 615, emphasizing that the Magistrate’s discretion to forward a complaint for investigation exists to prevent judicial time from being wasted on matters primarily requiring police investigation.
-
The ruling reiterates that truthfulness of allegations is not to be tested at the pre-cognizance stage; only the existence of a cognizable offence matters.
-
The decision is also a caution against judicial overreach, stressing that High Courts should not quash FIRs or interfere in investigations unless there is a clear abuse of process or lack of jurisdiction.
-
The judgment strengthens the procedural autonomy of the police and magistracy under the new BNSS framework, ensuring continuity with established CrPC jurisprudence.