[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narayan Prasad vs Mahesh Kumar Pandey on 1 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8599
1 MCRC-28939-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28939 of 2024
NARAYAN PRASAD AND OTHERS
Versus
MAHESH KUMAR PANDEY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Singh Sr. Advocate with Shri Pranay Joshi - Advocate for
the petitioners.
Shri Manish Kumar Vijaywargiya - Advocate for the respondent
no.1.
Shri Bhaskar Agarwal - Govt. Advocate for the respondent no.2/State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS, 2023 is filed
feeling aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Shajapur in Cr.R. No. 20/2024 whereby the order dated
22.06.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur referring the
complaint for investigation u/S 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was affirmed.
2. The exposition of facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, is as
under:
A. The respondent Mahesh Kumar Pandey filed an application u/S 156(3)
of Cr.P.C., inter-alia alleging that Narayan Prasad and Akhilesh (the
petitioners herein)had forged his signature to secure loan from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8599
2 MCRC-28939-2024
Bandhan Bank and ICICI Bank, Shajapur. He did not file any
application for grant of loan. Further, he was shown as Treasurer of
Dayanand Saraswati College in the year 2002 by forging his signature
on the documents filed with the Deputy Registrar of Firms and
Societies, Ujjain. Narayan Prasad and Akhilesh had filed an
application for partition before the Tehsildar, Shajapur on mutual
consent and an affidavit dated 20.05.2024 was filed forging his
signature.
B. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur vide impugned order dated
22.06.2024 passed in unregistered Criminal Case No. 482/2023
allowed the application and directed the SHO, P.S.Shajapur to
investigate in accordance with law against Narayan and Akhilesh
Pandey.
C. The petitioner filed Criminal revision before the Court of Sessions
feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2024 of Chief Judicial
Magistrate. The Third Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur in Cr.R.
No.20/2024 affirmed the order of CJM vide impugned order dated
03.07.2024.
3. Both the orders are assailed in the present petition mainly on the
following grounds:
1. The dispute between the petitioners and the respondent relates to
joint family property. The dispute is essentially civil in nature.
2. The ingredients of cheating are not made out. There is no material
to establish that the respondent has gained and the petitioners were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8599
3 MCRC-28939-2024
put to wrongful loss.
3. The Magistrate was required to apply judicial mind before
forwarding the complaint u/S 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
4. It is apparent from the material produced by the petitionerthat the
respondent no.1 was aware of formation of Society. He had signed
all the documentsfor obtaining loan. The report of private hand
writing Expert should not have been taken into consideration by
the Magistrate.
5. The petitioner no.1 is aged 77 years and a reputed Lawyer at
Shajapur City. He has also been the President of District Court Bar
Association for 05 times. He was the President of Akhil Bhartiya
Adhivakta Parishad of Madhya Pradesh and presently, he is the
Executive Member of Akhil Bharitya Adhivakta Parishad. The
petitioner no. 2 is a reputed Educationist.
6. The respondent has failed to make out the alleged offence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of Supreme
Court in the case of Ramdev Food Produces Private Limited Vs. State of
Gujarat reported in (2015) 6 SCC 439 and Priyanka Shrivastava and Ors. Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 to contend that the
impugned order does not show application of judicial mind by the
Magistrate. The Magistrate committed apparent error in relying on the report
of handwriting expert which was made on the basis of photocopies of the
documents. No case was made out for referral of the complaint u/S 156(3) of
the Cr.P.C. The Magistrate should have verified the veracity of the contents
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8599
4 MCRC-28939-2024
of complaint u/S 200 of Cr.P.C. by examining the complaint and may have
called for relevant documents in exercise of power u/S 91 of the Cr.P.C.
Therefore, impugned order suffers from illegality. Learned Sessions Judge
committed error in affirming the order. Both the orders deserve to be set
aside.
5. Learned counsel further contends that registration of FIR and
investigation may have larger ramification on the reputation of the
petitioners as they may be subject to coercive proceeding regarding arrest
and seizure on false allegations.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the
Magistrate considered the allegations contained in the complaint and passed
a reasoned speaking order for referral of the complaint u/S 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
for investigation by the police. Learned counsel referring to the judgment of
Supreme Court in the case of Sadiq B. Hanchinmani Vs. The State of
Karnataka reported in 2025 LiveLaw(SC) 1064 submitted that the power u/S
156(3) of Cr.P.C. is discretionary and is in nature of peremptory reminder to
the police to exercise its plenary power of investigation. Further, learned
counsel submits that the respondent/complainant had approached the police
first but police did not investigate his complaint. Therefore, he was
compelled to approach the Magistrate. When the Magistrate called for a
preliminary report from the police, the police cursorily submitted a report
that the matter is of civil nature whereas the contents of criminal complaint
clearly make out forgery of signatures of the complainant. There is no civil
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8599
5 MCRC-28939-2024
dispute pending between the parties. Therefore, the preliminary report was
baseless. Learned counsel also submitted that the trial Court and the
revisional Court committed no error in the impugned orders.
7. Heard, learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
8. The Apex Court in the case of Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State
of Gujarat, reported in(2015) 6 SCC 439 observed as under :
6. However, in the light of submissions made during the hearing, we frame the
following questions for consideration:
6.1. (i) Whether discretion of the Magistrate to call for a report under Section 202
instead of directing investigation under Section 156(3) is controlled by any defined
parameters?
6.2 (ii) ................................
6.3. (iii) Whether in the present case, the Magistrate erred in seeking report under
Section 202 instead of directing investigation under Section 156(3)?
**************
20. It has been held, for the same reasons, that direction by the Magistrate for
investigation under Section 156(3) cannot be given mechanically. In Anil Kumar v.
M.K. Aiyappa (2013) 10 SCC 705, it was observed :
11. "The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up for consideration before
this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat,
(2008) 5 SCC 668 examined the requirement of the application of mind by
the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held
that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section
156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in
such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under
Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The
application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The
mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and
heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be
sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the
complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under
Section 156(3) CrPC, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed
expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already
extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view,
has stated no reasons for ordering investigation."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8599
6 MCRC-28939-2024
The above observations apply to category of cases mentioned in para 120.6 in Lalita
Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1.
21. On the other hand, power under Section 202 is of different nature. Report
sought under the said provision has limited purpose of deciding "whether or not
there is sufficient ground for proceeding". If this be the object, the procedure under
Section 157 or Section 173 is not intended to be followed. Section 157 requires
sending of report by the police that the police officer suspected commission of
offence from information received by the police and thereafter the police is required
to proceed to the spot, investigate the facts and take measures for discovery and
arrest. Thereafter, the police has to record statements and report on which the
Magistrate may proceed under Section 190. This procedure is applicable when the
police receives information of a cognizable offence, registers a case and forms the
requisite opinion and not every case registered by the police.
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 may fall under Section 202.
22.3. 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.
We now come to the last question whether in the present case the Magistrate ought
to have proceeded under Section 156(3) instead of Section 202. Our answer is in the
negative. The Magistrate has given reasons, which have been upheld by the High
Court. The case has been held to be primarily of civil nature. The accused is alleged
to have forged partnership. Whether such forgery actually took place, whether it
caused any loss to the complainant and whether there is the requisite mens rea are
the questions which are yet to be determined. The Magistrate has not found clear
material to proceed against the accused. Even a case for summoning has not yet
been found. While a transaction giving rise to cause of action for a civil action may
also involve a crime in which case resort to criminal proceedings may be justified,
there is judicially acknowledged tendency in the commercial world to give colour of
a criminal case to a purely commercial transaction. This Court has cautioned against
such abuse.
9. In case of Madhao v. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2013) 5 SCC
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8599
7 MCRC-28939-2024
615, it was observed that-
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).
10. Recently, in case of Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra ,
reported in (2026) 2 SCC 622 , the Supreme Court held that -
26. It is, thus, not necessary that in every case where a complaint has been filed
under Section 200CrPC the Magistrate should direct the police to investigate the
crime merely because an application has also been filed under Section 156(3)CrPC
even though the evidence to be led by the complainant is in his possession or can be
produced by summoning witnesses, with the assistance of the court or otherwise.
The issue of jurisdiction also becomes important at that stage and cannot be
ignored.
27. In fact, the Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the police only where the
assistance of the investigating agency is necessary and the court feels that the cause
of justice is likely to suffer in the absence of investigation by the police. The
Magistrate is not expected to mechanically direct investigation by the police without
first examining whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation by
the State machinery is actually required or not. If the allegations made in the
complaint are simple, where the court can straightaway proceed to conduct the trial,
the Magistrate is expected to record evidence and proceed further in the matter,
instead of passing the buck to the police under Section 156(3)CrPC. Of course, if
the allegations made in the complaint require complex and complicated
investigation which cannot be undertaken without active assistance and expertise of
the State machinery, it would only be appropriate for the Magistrate to direct
investigation by the police authorities. The Magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to
act merely as a post office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering
an application seeking investigation by the police.
11. The material on record is examined in light of aforestated propositions
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8599
8 MCRC-28939-2024
of law. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Shajapur considered the allegations
contained in the complaint. The impugned order reflects application of
judicial mind by learned Magistrate, as the allegation contained in the
complaint are summarized in the order. Learned Magistrate also considered
that the police had found the dispute civil in nature and non-cognizable.
Considering the documents filed by complainant, learned Magistrate
concluded that the matter requires fair inquiry with regard to signature of
complainant Mahesh on the documents. The seizure of original documents in
the investigation would be required. The dispute involved is criminal in
nature and cognizable offence is prima facie made out.
12. At the stage of referring a complaint under section 156(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate only needs to consider, if prima facie
cognizable offence is evident, warranting an FIR and investigation. The
detailed scrutiny of facts and expressing opinions on specific offence is
unnecessary at this stage.
13. The revisional court considered specific allegations contained in the
complaint regarding forgery of signatures of the complainant to secure loan
of ₹4,00,00,000 and filing of forged affidavit in his name before the Court of
Tehsildar and in the office of Deputy Registrar,Firms and Societies, Ujjain.
The revisional Court concluded that there is no illegality in the impugned
order of learned Magistrate.
14. The defence or explanation of the accused cannot be considered at this
stage. This Court while considering validity of impugned orders in exercise
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8599
9 MCRC-28939-2024
of inherent jurisdiction, cannot indulge into threadbare analysis of the
allegations in the complaint or evaluation of the material submitted before
the trial Court. The allegations set out in the complaint, in the light of
supporting material, prima facie constitute cognizable offence. The
investigation by Police would be required for seizure of original documents
alleged to be forged and for verification of signature thereupon to unearth the
truth. There is no material impropriety or manifest illegality in the impugned
orders.
15. The reasoning and the conclusion of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Shajapur cannot be considered improper or illegal. The Revisional Court
committed no error in affirming the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Therefore, no case is made out for interference in exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023.
16. Consequently, the petition being meritless, is dismissed.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh
