Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Magistrate’s Order Declining FIR Under Section 156(3); Says Alleged Complaint Tampering a Matter for Trial, Not Police Investigation

Case Name: Tanvi & Another vs. Abhineet
Date of Judgment: 01 December 2025
Citation: CRR-295-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhas Mehla

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the revisional court’s direction ordering reconsideration of a husband’s plea for registration of FIR against his wife and father-in-law for alleged tampering with her earlier complaint. The Court restored the Magistrate’s original order holding that the complaint did not disclose any cognizable offence warranting investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC and that the dispute turned on factual issues which must be examined during trial, not through police investigation.

Summary: The respondent-husband had filed a complaint alleging that his wife later inserted a line relating to “forced abortion” into her earlier complaint, enabling addition of Section 313 IPC in the FIR registered against him. He sought registration of FIR for forgery and conspiracy. The Magistrate declined the request, observing that the complainant possessed all documents necessary to prove his allegations and that, at best, he could lead evidence under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC.

The revisional court, however, set aside the Magistrate’s order and directed fresh consideration, treating the original complaint as a “public document” and holding that alteration of such record required police investigation. The High Court found this approach flawed. Relying on Saurav Das and B.N. John, it held that an information given to police is not a “complaint” under the CrPC and is not a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Even assuming some alteration occurred, the Court held that the most that could be alleged was an offence under Section 465 IPC, which is non-cognizable and therefore cannot justify a 156(3) direction.

The Court further reiterated the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Amit Kapoor and Chandra Babu, emphasising that where the Magistrate’s reasoning is legally sound and not perverse, the revisional court cannot substitute its own view merely because another opinion is possible. Here, the Magistrate’s decision represented correct application of law, and any factual dispute regarding the authenticity or alteration of the complaint must be adjudicated during trial, not in preliminary police investigation.

Decision: The High Court allowed the revision, quashed the revisional court’s order dated 02 December 2024, and restored the Magistrate’s order dated 11 June 2024 declining the request for registration of FIR. The complainant may still pursue his allegations by leading evidence before the Magistrate in accordance with law.