Referral under Section 156(3) is sustainable where forgery allegations necessitate police expertise for document seizure and signature verification.

The respondent, Mahesh Kumar Pandey, filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioners forged his signatures to obtain loans from Bandhan Bank and ICICI Bank, falsely represented him as a Treasurer of a college in regulatory filings, and forged an affidavit for a partition suit before the Tehsildar.

On June 22, 2024, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Shajapur, directed the police to investigate the matter.

The petitioners challenged this order in the Sessions Court, which affirmed the CJM's direction on July 3, 2024.

The petitioners subsequently moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of BNSS, 2023), contending that the dispute was purely civil, the Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind, and the allegations were a result of a family property dispute.

1. Whether the Magistrate exercised proper judicial discretion and applied judicial mind before referring the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the existence of a potential civil dispute precludes the Magistrate from ordering a criminal investigation into allegations of forgery.

The court primarily applied Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. (equivalent to the BNSS) regarding the Magistrate’s power to order an investigation.

It relied on Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (2015) and Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa (2013), which establish that a direction under Section 156(3) must not be issued mechanically and must reflect the application of judicial mind.

Furthermore, the court cited Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra (2026), asserting that police investigation is appropriate when the case involves complex matters requiring the expertise of State machinery, such as the seizure of documents.

Finally, it noted that under Madhao v. State of Maharashtra (2013), a Magistrate is justified in referring a matter to the police if it is conducive to justice and saves judicial time.

The High Court observed that the CJM did not act mechanically; the impugned order summarized the allegations and specifically addressed the necessity of a "fair inquiry" regarding the disputed signatures.

The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the dispute was purely civil, noting that even if a transaction has civil overtones, it may still constitute a cognizable criminal offense if forgery is involved.

The court reasoned that the seizure of original documents and expert verification of signatures are tasks essentially requiring the investigative powers of the police, which the Magistrate cannot easily perform in a Section 200 inquiry.

The court emphasized that at the referral stage, the Magistrate only needs to determine if a prima facie cognizable offense is made out, and the defense or explanation of the accused cannot be considered at this juncture.

The court affirmed that the allegations of forgery prima facie constituted cognizable offenses requiring police investigation for the seizure and verification of documents.

The petition was dismissed as meritless.