Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka: Supreme Court held – Prima Facie Case as to Commission of Cognizable Offence, Merit Police Investigation

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Introduction

For Ordering Investigation under S. 156(3): Prima Facie ‘EXISTENCE OF SUFFICIENT GROUND TO PROCEED’ is enough.
For quashing the FIR: What is to be looked into is whether the allegations in the FIR Prima Facie Discloses The Commission Of A Cognizable Offence or not. The Court is not required to consider the merits while considering quashing the first information report under Section 482 Cr. P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

These were the matters discussed by the Supreme Court of India, in Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka, 4 November 2025 (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Pankaj Mithal, JJ.).

Also Read: The Doctrine of ‘Prima Facie Case’ in Criminal Cases

Facts of the case

A Rent Agreement produced by the accused, on an E-Stamp Paper, was fake. Even the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps stated that Prima Facie the E- Stamp used was a fake E-Stamp. It was contended – since there was Prima Facie material that substantiates the appellant’s claim that the E- Stamp Paper is a forged document, the possibility of a conspiracy hatched by the accused cannot be ruled out.

The prime question for consideration

The prime question for consideration was the following:

Whether the direction for investigation to the police issued by the JMFC under Section 156(3) of the Code, which was quashed by the Impugned Orders, is justified based on the facts and circumstances of the cases.

The Apex Court relied on the following decisions:

1. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401,
2. Madhao v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 615,
3. Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439.

The Apex Court, while exercising the powers to quash the first information report under Section 482 Cr. P.C or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is pointed out in a three-judge bench decision (Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.) in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, that the court has to exercise the powers in a very sparing manner. It is observed as under:

‘16. In a given case, there may be allegations of abuse of process of law by converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute, only with a view to pressurise the accused. Similarly, in a given case the complaint itself on the face of it can be said to be barred by law. The allegations in the FIR/complaint may not at all disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such cases and in exceptional cases with circumspection, the High Court may stay the further investigation. However, at the same time, there may be genuine complaints/FIRs and the police/investigating agency has a statutory obligation/right/duty to enquire into the cognizable offences. Therefore, a balance has to be struck between the rights of the genuine complainants and the FIRs disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and the statutory obligation/duty of the investigating agency to investigate into the cognizable offences on the one hand and those innocent persons against whom the criminal proceedings are initiated which may be in a given case abuse of process of law and the process. However, if the facts are hazy and the investigation has just begun, the High Court would be circumspect in exercising such powers and the High Court must permit the investigating agency to proceed further with the investigation in exercise of its statutory duty under the provisions of the Code. Even in such a case the High Court has to give/assign brief reasons why at this stage the further investigation is required to be stayed. The High Court must appreciate that speedy investigation is the requirement in the criminal administration of justice.’
xxx
‘33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 CrPC, only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.’ (emphasis supplied)

In Madhao v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 615 (P. Sathasivam, Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ.), it was held as under:

“18. When a Magistrate receives a complaint he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint disclose the commission of an offence. The Magistrate has discretion in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint, he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence itself. As said earlier, in the case of a complaint regarding the commission of cognizable offence, the power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a). However, if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to revert back to the pre-cognizance stage and avail of Section 156(3).”
“This position of law was recently reiterated in Lavanya C v Vittal Gurudas Pai, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 499, where one of us (P. Mithal, J.) was part of the coram.”

In Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439, three learned Judges (T.S. Thakur, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R. Banumathi) opined after noticing Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala, (2023) 18 SCC 730, as under:

“13. We may first deal with the question as to whether the Magistrate ought to have proceeded under Section 156(3) or was justified in proceeding under Section 202(1) and what are the parameters for exercise of power under the two provisions.
xxx
22. Thus, we answer the first question by holding that:
22.1. The direction under Section 156(3) is to be issued, only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone the issuance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued.
22.2. The cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine
- “existence of sufficient ground to proceed”.
Category of cases falling under para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] may fall under Section 202. Subject to these broad guidelines available from the scheme of the Code, exercise of discretion by the Magistrate is guided by interest of justice from case to case.
xxx
38. In Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy [(1976) 3 SCC 252: 1976 SCC (Cri) 380], National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz [(2013) 2 SCC 488: (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 731], Madhao v. State of Maharashtra [(2013) 5 SCC 615: (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 141], Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 4 SCC 185: (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 801], the scheme of Sections 156(3) and 202 has been discussed. It was observed that power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before taking cognizance and was in the nature of pre-emptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise its plenary power of investigation beginning with Section 156 and ending with report or charge-sheet under Section 173. On the other hand, Section 202 applies at post-cognizance stage and the direction for investigation was for the purpose of deciding whether there was sufficient ground to proceed.”

Finding of the Apex Court

It is held in Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka as under:

“38. In the background of the factual position, the JMFC’s Order dated 18.01.2018 cannot be faulted. 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, in view of the material that was available with the JMFC.
xxx
40. 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. The case(s) at hand, in our considered view, demonstrate material showing the commission of cognizable offence(s), on the face of it, which would merit police investigation. Therefore, interdiction of the Impugned Orders is necessitated.”

Conclusion

In the background of the factual position, the Apex Court held that the JMFC’s Order cannot be faulted, and that enough material was available to justify a full-fledged investigation by the police, and that the JMFC had 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.

End Note:

Framing the Charges – Only a Prima Facie Case is to be Satisfied

In Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam, AIR 2020 SC 554, 2020-2 SCC 217 (Hrishikesh Roy, A.S. Bopanna, R. Banumathi, JJ.), it is observed as under:

“12. Though the circumstances alleged in the charge sheet are to be established during the trial by adducing the evidence, the allegations in the charge sheet show a prima facie case against the accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2. The circumstances alleged by the prosecution indicate that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. At the time of framing the charges, only prima facie case is to be seen; whether case is beyond reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at this stage. At the stage of framing the charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against the accused is to be seen.”

Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka: Supreme Court held – Prima Facie Case as to Commission of Cognizable Offence, Merit Police Investigation

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Share this:

Related

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment Cancel reply