A Section 156(3) referral cannot be quashed on disputed merits before investigation.

Respondents 2 and 3 filed a private complaint in PCR No. 1175/2020 alleging offences against the petitioners.

The Magistrate noted that the complaint was supported by an affidavit in compliance with Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. and referred it for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”).

The petitioners sought to quash the complaint, the referral order and the resulting FIR, contending, among other things, that the referral order lacked application of mind and that the complaint was defective because the second named complainant had not signed it.

They also raised factual defences concerning the parties’ financial dealings and the third petitioner’s residence in the United States.

Whether the Magistrate’s order referring the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC was liable to be quashed for lack of application of mind.

Whether the alleged defect that the second named complainant had not signed the complaint warranted quashing the complaint and the referral order.

Whether the petitioners’ factual defence concerning the underlying transaction could be considered in a petition challenging a pre-cognizance referral for investigation.

Section 156(3) CrPC empowers a Magistrate, before taking cognizance, to refer a complaint disclosing cognizable offences to the police for investigation.

At that stage, the Magistrate is to consider the complaint and determine whether investigation is warranted; the court need not adjudicate the accused’s factual defence as though deciding the merits of the allegations.

The Magistrate’s order recorded that the complaint was supported by an affidavit in compliance with Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., AIR 2015 SC 1758, and that cognizable, non-bailable offences were disclosed.

The High Court considered the challenge under Section 482 CrPC, but held that the grounds raised did not justify interference with the pre-cognizance referral.

The High Court examined the referral order and found that the Magistrate had considered the complaint’s contents, noted the supporting affidavit and formed the view that cognizable offences were disclosed and investigation was appropriate.

Although the second complainant was named in the cause title, only the first complainant had signed the prayer and verification, and an affidavit accompanied the complaint; the Court did not treat this circumstance as sufficient to quash the referral.

The petitioners’ claims about the debt, documents and the third petitioner’s lack of involvement concerned the merits and were matters for investigation, including consideration by the Investigating Officer.

The Court therefore declined to assess those factual disputes at the pre-cognizance stage.

It declined to quash the private complaint, the Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) CrPC or the resulting FIR, holding that the challenged order was a pre-cognizance referral made after the Magistrate considered the complaint and found that investigation was warranted.