LexSADIQ B. HANCHINMANI versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. R1: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R2: CHNDRUMAL R3: SANJAY R4: NANDKUMAR R5: VIJAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 246 : 2025 INSC 1282 Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. R1: The State of Karnataka R2: Chndrumal R3: Sanjay R4: Nandkumar R5: Vijay (Criminal Appeal No. 4728 of 2025) 04 November 2025 [Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.] 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. Headnotes† 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 * Author [2025] 11 S.C.R. 247 Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. 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] Case Law Cited Priyanka Shrivastava v. State of U.P. [2015] 4 SCR 108 : (2015) 6 SCC 287; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [2021] 4 SCR 1044 : (2021) 19 SCC 401; Meena M. Dongare v. Sadiq S/O Bashirahmad Hanchanmani, Special Leave Petitions (Civil) No. 1667-1668/2016; Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan [1998] Supp. 1 SCR 244 : (1998) 7 SCC 59; Madhao v. State of Maharashtra [2013] 5 SCR 484 : (2013) 5 SCC 615; Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat [2015] 5 SCR 283 : (2015) 6 SCC 439; Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala [2023] 2 SCR 1014 : (2023) 18 SCC 730 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Right to Information Act, 2005. List of Keywords Police Investigation; Judicial Magistrate First Class; Police invoking power u/s.156(3) CrPC; Rent Agreement; E-Stamp Paper; Usage of the term ‘further’. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 4728 of 2025 248 [2025] 11 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2021 of the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in CRLP No. 100651 of 2018 With Criminal Appeal No. 4729 of 2025 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv., Rohit Kumar Singh, Ms. Divija Mahajan, Ms. Nishi Singh, Ms. Shweta Priyadarshini, Shikhar Gupta, Shubham V. Gawande. Advs. for the Respondents: Prateek Chadha, A.A.G., D. L. Chidananda, N. D. B. Raju, Mrs. Barathi Raju, Ms Vasundhara Raju, M. A. Chinnasamy, C Raghavendren, Mrs. C Rubavathi. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted in both petitions. 3. The instant criminal ap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.