Specific allegations of criminal offences warrant an opportunity to lead pre-summoning evidence before dismissal of the complaint.

Respondents 2 and 3 filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners, accompanied by an application under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking registration of an FIR.

The Magistrate dismissed the application and the complaint, finding that no offence was disclosed, without giving the complainants an opportunity to lead pre-summoning evidence.

In revision, the dismissal of the Section 156(3) application was left undisturbed, but the complaint was remitted for pre-summoning evidence.

The proposed accused challenged that direction, arguing that the Magistrate had already found no offence was disclosed.

1. Whether the Revisional Court erred in directing the Magistrate to permit pre-summoning evidence after the Magistrate had dismissed the complaint on the ground that no offence was disclosed.

2. Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the complaint could be dismissed without allowing the complainants an opportunity to lead evidence.

Under Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to examine the complainant and witnesses on oath when taking cognizance.

As recognised in Anoop Kumar v. State and Anr., a Magistrate need not invariably permit pre-summoning evidence before dismissing a complaint where, on its face and with supporting documents, the complaint discloses no ground for action.

The Court also referred to Sections 91 and 202 CrPC, under which the Magistrate may require production of documents and order an investigation.

The cited decisions Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar and Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. Prasad Vassudev Keni were relied upon by the petitioners; the Court did not identify a separate rule from them in its reasoning.

The Court accepted the general proposition in Anoop Kumar that pre-summoning evidence is not required in every case where the complaint, taken at face value, discloses no offence.

It distinguished the present matter because the complaint contained specific allegations of conspiracy, cheating and forgery, including allegations concerning documents connected with the property dispute.

The Revisional Court had noted that the originals of the allegedly forged documents had not been produced and that their production or examination could be pursued during the complainants’ evidence.

In those circumstances, denying the complainants the opportunity to lead evidence would frustrate their complaint; the Magistrate could still dismiss it if the evidence ultimately failed to disclose an offence.

The Court emphasised that these observations were tentative and did not determine the merits.

It dismissed the petition, leaving intact the dismissal of the Section 156(3) application and the remand for the complainants to lead evidence.