The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that a Magistrate need not conduct a detailed evidentiary analysis before directing police investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. A prima facie case of cognizable offence, such as forgery of signatures to secure loans and file fraudulent affidavits, is sufficient to trigger investigative powers - regardless of subsequent civil dispute claims.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from allegations that the petitioners, Narayan Prasad and Akhilesh Pandey, forged the signature of the respondent, Mahesh Kumar Pandey, on multiple documents to obtain financial benefits. The respondent alleges that his signature was forged on: (i) loan applications submitted to Bandhan Bank and ICICI Bank, Shajapur; (ii) documents filed with the Deputy Registrar of Firms and Societies, Ujjain, to falsely show him as Treasurer of Dayanand Saraswati College in 2002; and (iii) an affidavit dated 20.05.2024 filed before the Tehsildar, Shajapur, in support of a partition application.
Key Facts
- The respondent claims he never applied for any loan from Bandhan Bank or ICICI Bank.
- He asserts he was never appointed as Treasurer of Dayanand Saraswati College and had no knowledge of the documents submitted to the Deputy Registrar.
- The petitioners filed a partition application before the Tehsildar on 20.05.2024, relying on an affidavit bearing the respondent’s forged signature.
- The respondent filed a criminal complaint on 10.04.2023 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur, alleging forgery under Section 465 IPC and Section 471 IPC.
- The respondent had previously approached the local police, who declined to register an FIR, stating the matter was civil in nature.
- The complainant submitted photocopies of the disputed documents, including the loan applications and the affidavit.
- A private handwriting expert’s report, based on these photocopies, concluded that the respondent’s signature was forged.
Procedural History
- 10.04.2023: Criminal complaint filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur (Unregistered Criminal Case No. 482/2023).
- 22.06.2024: Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur, passed order directing SHO, PS Shajapur, to investigate under Section 156(3) CrPC.
- 25.06.2024: Police submitted preliminary report stating the matter was civil and non-cognizable.
- 03.07.2024: Third Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, affirmed the Magistrate’s order in Criminal Revision No. 20/2024.
- 15.07.2024: Petitioners filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS, 2023) before the High Court.
- 01.04.2026: Judgment delivered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners (Narayan Prasad and Akhilesh Pandey):
- Argue the dispute is purely civil, concerning joint family property and partition.
- Contend that the respondent was aware of and consented to the formation of the society and loan applications.
- Challenge the reliance on a handwriting expert’s report based on photocopies.
- Highlight their professional standing: Petitioner No. 1 is a 77-year-old senior advocate and former President of the District Bar Association and Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Parishad; Petitioner No. 2 is a reputed educationist.
- Assert that investigation will cause irreparable reputational harm.
Respondent (Mahesh Kumar Pandey):
- Maintains he never signed any of the disputed documents.
- States he approached the police first, but they refused to act.
- Argues the Magistrate properly applied judicial mind and that forgery is a cognizable offence.
- Emphasizes that the original documents are in the possession of the petitioners and require forensic seizure.
Relief Sought
The petitioners seek quashing of the orders dated 22.06.2024 (CJM) and 03.07.2024 (Sessions Judge), and a direction to refrain from initiating any criminal proceedings against them.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Magistrate, upon receiving a complaint alleging forgery under Section 465 IPC, must conduct a detailed evidentiary evaluation before directing police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, or whether a prima facie case suffices.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Ramdev Food Products v. State of Gujarat (2015) 6 SCC 439 and Priyanka Shrivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287 to argue that the Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind. They contended that:
- The Magistrate relied on a handwriting report based on photocopies, which is legally insufficient.
- The dispute is civil in nature, and criminal proceedings are an abuse of process.
- The Magistrate should have examined the complaint under Section 200 CrPC and summoned witnesses instead of directing police investigation.
- The petitioners’ professional reputation would be irreparably damaged by coercive investigation.
For the Respondent
The respondent argued that:
- The Magistrate did apply judicial mind by summarizing the allegations and noting the police’s preliminary report.
- Forgery of signatures to obtain loans and file legal affidavits constitutes a cognizable offence under Section 465 IPC.
- The police had already declined to act, justifying the Magistrate’s intervention under Section 156(3).
- The original documents are in the petitioners’ possession and require forensic examination only possible through police investigation.
- The Supreme Court in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 2 SCC 622 clarified that Magistrates are not post offices and must assess necessity of police assistance.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court examined the legal framework governing Section 156(3) CrPC and the scope of judicial discretion at the pre-cognizance stage. It emphasized that the Magistrate’s role at this stage is not to determine guilt or conduct a trial, but to assess whether a prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed.
"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."
The Court noted that the complaint alleged forgery of signatures on multiple official documents - loan applications, society records, and a court affidavit - each of which could independently constitute an offence under Section 465 IPC. The fact that the police declined to act did not preclude the Magistrate from exercising his statutory power.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that reliance on a handwriting report based on photocopies invalidated the order. It held that at the Section 156(3) stage, the Magistrate is not required to verify the authenticity of documents or assess the credibility of expert opinions. Such evaluation is reserved for trial.
"The defence or explanation of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. This Court while considering validity of impugned orders in exercise 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 Court further distinguished Ramdev Food Products, noting that in that case, the Magistrate had failed to record any reasons. Here, the Magistrate had explicitly noted the police’s preliminary report, the nature of the allegations, and the need for seizure of original documents. This satisfied the requirement of judicial application of mind.
The Court also cited Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 2 SCC 622 to reinforce that Section 156(3) is not a default mechanism but a tool to be used when police expertise is necessary - such as in cases requiring forensic document examination.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the orders dated 22.06.2024 and 03.07.2024 directing police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Court held that the complaint prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence of forgery, and the Magistrate’s order was legally valid. No coercive action, including arrest, is mandated at this stage; investigation is merely to ascertain the truth through seizure of original documents and forensic verification.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prima Facie Forgery Justifies Police Investigation
- Practitioners must now recognize that allegations of forged signatures on financial or legal documents, even if contested, are sufficient to trigger Section 156(3) if they suggest criminal intent.
- Civil disputes involving documents cannot automatically shield parties from criminal investigation if forgery is alleged.
Magistrate’s Duty Is Minimal at Pre-Investigation Stage
- Magistrates are not required to resolve evidentiary conflicts, assess witness credibility, or verify expert reports at the Section 156(3) stage.
- A summary of allegations and a reasoned conclusion that a cognizable offence is prima facie made out suffices.
Police Non-Action Is Not a Bar to Magistrate Intervention
- If police refuse to register an FIR without valid grounds, the complainant’s recourse under Section 156(3) remains open.
- The Magistrate’s power is not contingent on police willingness but on the nature of the complaint.
Original Documents Require Forensic Seizure
- When original documents are in the possession of the accused and their authenticity is disputed, Section 156(3) is the appropriate mechanism to secure evidence.
- Courts will not quash investigation orders merely because the complainant has documentary evidence; the need for forensic verification justifies police involvement.
Reputation Alone Cannot Block Investigation
- Professional standing or social reputation of the accused is irrelevant at the investigation stage.
- The law does not permit immunity from investigation based on status, even for senior advocates or public figures.
