Narayan Prasad vs Mahesh Kumar Pandey

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on: 01-04-2026

<div> 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 st ON THE 1 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 rd feeling aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the 3 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 01-04-2026 18:17:37 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 01-04-2026 18:17:37 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 439and 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 01-04-2026 18:17:37 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 01-04-2026 18:17:37 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 439observed 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.” Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 01-04-2026 18:17:37 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 01-04-2026 18:17:37 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 01-04-2026 18:17:37 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 01-04-2026 18:17:37 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 01-04-2026 18:17:37</div>