Section 156(3) CrPC investigation cannot be directed mechanically in disputes of a primarily civil nature.

The petitioner, Prabhulal, filed an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC alleging that a ‘Will’ purportedly executed by his deceased uncle, Kunwarji, was a forged document created by the accused to deprive him of his inheritance

He sought a direction for the police to register an FIR and investigate the matter

The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Ujjain, rejected the application on 26.03.2022, observing that the dispute was civil in nature and granting the petitioner liberty to file a private criminal complaint

This order was subsequently affirmed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, in a criminal revision on 01.07.2022

The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, contending that the lower courts failed to comply with the mandatory registration of FIR guidelines established in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.

1. Whether the Magistrate is bound to mechanically direct an investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC whenever an application discloses a cognizable offense.

2. Whether the dispute regarding the validity and alleged forgery of a ‘Will’ in this instance constitutes a prima facie criminal offense requiring police investigation.

The court applied the principles from Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, which mandates FIR registration for cognizable offenses but permits preliminary inquiries in matrimonial, family, and commercial disputes

It relied on Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat, establishing that a Magistrate must apply their mind and not act mechanically when exercising discretion under Section 156(3)

the court cited Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, holding that police investigation should only be directed when the assistance of the state machinery is actually required and the court cannot straightaway proceed with a trial

The court examined whether the JMFC’s refusal to invoke Section 156(3) was legally sound.

It observed that the petitioner’s allegation of forgery was based on suspicion regarding inconsistencies in the Will’s execution, yet no prima facie evidence was produced to support this claim

Crucially, the court noted that the Will had not been declared forged or suspicious by any competent Civil Court, reinforcing the JMFC's conclusion that the matter was primarily a civil dispute

The court reasoned that since the allegations were not complex and did not necessitate specialized state investigative expertise, the Magistrate correctly exercised discretion by directing the petitioner toward the private complaint route under Section 200 of the CrPC

This approach ensures that the criminal machinery is not abused to settle purely civil or commercial grievances

It affirmed that the Magistrate is not a "post office" and must adopt a judicial approach to determine if a state investigation is necessary

Finding no merit in the challenge, the court dismissed the petition and upheld the lower courts' decisions to decline the Section 156(3) application