[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vivek Tamrakar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 10 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5273
1 MCRC-19731-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 10th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19731 of 2018
VIVEK TAMRAKAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Brajesh Tyagi - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has
been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 31.03.2018 passed by
the learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal
Revision No. 177/2017, whereby the criminal revision preferred by the
petitioners against the order dated 23.09.2017 passed by the learned JMFC,
Guna was dismissed, affirming the said order. By the order dated 23.09.2017,
the learned JMFC allowed the application filed by respondent No.2 under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and directed Police Station Kotwali, Guna to conduct
investigation. The petitioners have further challenged the FIR bearing Crime
No.668/2017 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Guna for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code,
which came to be registered pursuant to the aforesaid order.
The facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5273
2 MCRC-19731-2018
No.2/complainant filed a private complaint alleging commission of offences
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 341, 294, 506-B and 120-B of IPC. It was
alleged that the complainant owns land situated at Village Wajidpur and
Village Tarawali, District Ashoknagar. According to the complainant, his
brother, the main accused Brajesh Singh, by playing fraud and in collusion
with the Patwari and Tehsildar of the concerned villages, got his name
mutated in the revenue records. It was further alleged that the accused
obtained an order of partition under Section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue
Code by fraudulent means and, on the basis of such order, got his name
recorded in the revenue records including the khasra entries. Subsequently,
relying upon the said revenue records, the accused applied for and obtained a
loan from HDFC Bank, District Guna. It was alleged that the bank
sanctioned the loan after verification of the revenue records through its legal
advisor and by checking the land records available on the official website of
the State of Madhya Pradesh. Upon coming to know about the sanction of
the loan, the complainant filed a private complaint before the learned Trial
Court. Vide order dated 11.07.2017, the learned Magistrate directed a
preliminary inquiry and fixed the matter for 30.08.2017. Pursuant thereto, an
inquiry report dated 30.08.2017 was submitted, stating that offences appeared
to be made out against bank officials, Tehsildar, Revenue Inspector, Patwari
and other revenue officers. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.09.2017, the
learned JMFC directed investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved
by the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Sessions
Court. The Revisional Court, vide impugned order dated 31.03.2018,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5273
3 MCRC-19731-2018
dismissed the revision holding it to be not maintainable and further upheld
the order of the learned Magistrate on merits, observing that once the FIR
had been registered, no interference was warranted. Hence, the present
petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present case
originated from a private complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and
that the petitioners are employees of HDFC Bank who had sanctioned the
loan strictly in accordance with banking norms after due verification of
revenue records.
It was contended that once a private complaint is filed, the Magistrate
is required to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. The complainant ought to have been examined on oath, and only
thereafter, if deemed necessary, a police inquiry could have been directed. In
the present case, without examining the complainant as mandated under
Section 200 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate mechanically passed an order
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is evident from the order-sheets.
It was further submitted that as per settled law, before directing
registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate must
satisfy himself that the complainant had first approached the police under
Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. and thereafter the Superintendent of Police under
Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. In the present case, neither the complaint nor the
inquiry report discloses any such prior recourse. Therefore, the impugned
order suffers from non-compliance of mandatory statutory requirements and
deserves to be quashed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5273
4 MCRC-19731-2018
Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned orders and
submitted that the learned JMFC exercised jurisdiction in accordance with
law. It was contended that the requirement of prior recourse under Sections
154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. is directory in nature and that, considering the
seriousness of allegations, the direction for investigation was justified. It was
further submitted that once an FIR has been registered pursuant to a judicial
order, interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would amount to stalling a
lawful investigation. Accordingly, the petition deserves dismissal.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is well settled by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State
of U.P. & Ors. 2015 (6) SCC 287 that the power under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised mechanically and that an application seeking
such direction must disclose prior compliance of Sections 154(1) and 154(3)
Cr.P.C. The Magistrate is duty-bound to apply judicial mind and record
satisfaction regarding such compliance before directing registration of an
FIR.
In the present case, a perusal of the complaint as well as the order-
sheets of the Trial Court clearly demonstrates that no date or material has
been mentioned regarding any prior approach to the police or to the
Superintendent of Police. Even the inquiry report submitted pursuant to the
preliminary direction of the Court does not reflect that any complaint was
ever lodged by the complainant before the police authorities. Despite the
absence of such foundational facts, the learned JMFC proceeded to pass an
order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without recording any satisfaction in this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5273
5 MCRC-19731-2018
regard.
Furthermore, this Court finds that the learned Magistrate did not
examine the complainant on oath as mandated under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
before passing the impugned order. Once a private complaint is presented,
the Magistrate has to either take cognizance and proceed under Chapter XV
or, before taking cognizance, direct investigation under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. only after ensuring that the statutory safeguards are satisfied. In the
present case, the learned Magistrate neither followed the procedure under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. nor recorded any reasons justifying deviation from the
normal procedure. The order dated 23.09.2017 reflects a complete non-
application of judicial mind and is therefore vitiated.
The Revisional Court, instead of correcting the manifest illegality,
erroneously held that once the FIR has been registered, the order passed
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be interfered with. Such a view is
legally unsustainable. If the very foundation of the FIR is illegal due to non-
compliance of mandatory provisions of law, this Court, in exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is fully competent to interfere in
order to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the order dated 23.09.2017 passed by the learned JMFC, Guna
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. suffers from serious procedural irregularities
and non-compliance of mandatory statutory requirements. Consequently, the
order dated 31.03.2018 passed by the Revisional Court affirming the same
also cannot be sustained.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5273
6 MCRC-19731-2018
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The order dated
23.09.2017 passed by the learned JMFC, Guna as well as the order dated
31.03.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge,
Guna are hereby quashed. Consequently, FIR bearing Crime No.668/2017
registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Guna for offences punishable
under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and all proceedings arising
therefrom are also quashed.
It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the
complainant from availing any other remedy available to him in accordance
with law.
Petition stands allowed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
