Registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC must faithfully reflect material allegations and inquiry findings.

The petitioner, an employee of the Jabalpur District Court, alleged a conspiracy by private respondents to forge judicial records to secure an ex-parte acquittal in a criminal revision

A preliminary inquiry by the District Judge confirmed prima facie evidence of forgery

Despite judicial permission to prosecute, the police failed to register an FIR, leading the petitioner to seek an order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

The JMFC Jabalpur directed the SHO to register an FIR incorporating material particulars from the inquiry report

The police delayed registration until contempt proceedings were initiated and then filed FIR No. 487/2025, which the petitioner challenged as being vague, incomplete, and intentionally diluted to shield the accused

1. Whether the registration of a vague and perfunctory FIR constitutes genuine and faithful compliance with a judicial mandate issued under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether an FIR that omits material particulars and findings of a preliminary inquiry is legally sustainable

The court applied Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation, and Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the mandatory recording of information in cognizable offences

compliance with judicial orders must be "real, effective, and meaningful," rather than a "mechanical or cosmetic exercise"

the police must act in the "true spirit" of judicial directions, ensuring the FIR faithfully reflects the substance of the complaint

The Court found that while the police technically registered an FIR, the document was a "mere sham" and a "superficial exercise"

The Court reasoned that the police intentionally omitted crucial findings from the District Judge's inquiry report and provided incorrect addresses for the accused, which facilitated their obtaining anticipatory bail

By reducing the FIR to a "bare recital of procedural background" rather than a disclosure of cognizable offences, the police frustrated the object of a fair investigation

The Court concluded that such "mechanical" compliance undermines the sanctity of the judicial process and the discipline required in the administration of criminal justice

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed FIR No. 487/2025. The Court directed the SHO of Police Station Omti to register a fresh FIR in "strict and faithful compliance" with the Magistrate's order, ensuring it incorporates all material facts and findings from the preliminary inquiry to facilitate a fair and effective investigation