#CrPC 156(3)

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that a person who may become an accused cannot question a direction under CrPC 156(3) to investigate, and that a handwriting expert’s report must be supported by additional evidence before it can underpin a conviction. This limits challenges to investigative orders and raises the evidentiary threshold for expert testimony, affecting future forgery and fraud prosecutions.

Allahabad High Court reaffirms that magistrates are not bound to direct FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC merely because allegations disclose a cognizable offence. The ruling underscores that judicial discretion must evaluate whether police investigation is necessary, particularly when the complainant knows the accused and witnesses, preventing mechanical orders and potential misuse of criminal process.

Madras High Court rules that failure to file an affidavit under CrPC 156(3) is a mere procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, and does not invalidate the FIR or charge sheet. The court held that a prima facie case of poisoning and criminal conspiracy suffices to proceed to trial, reinforcing that technical lapses cannot override substantive justice.

Himachal Pradesh High Court rules that a civil court's observation that a document is 'not genuine' and 'procured for litigation' does not automatically establish a prima facie case of forgery under IPC Sections 467, 468, 420, or 471. For an FIR to be registered under CrPC 156(3), specific allegations of dishonest intent and fabrication must be present, not merely adverse civil findings.