Supreme Court Restores FIR and Reaffirms Limits of Section 482—Quashing Improper Where Prima Facie Evidence Shows Forged E-Stamp & Fraud on Court

Case Name: Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Citation: Criminal Appeals arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 11336 of 2022 & Diary No. 39619 of 2022; 2025 INSC 1282
Date of Judgment/Order: 04 November 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Held: The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC when the material on record demonstrated a prima facie case of forging a Rent Agreement using a fake E-Stamp to mislead the court and defeat a subsisting status quo order in pending civil proceedings. The Court ruled that the Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) CrPC was justified, as the allegations disclosed cognizable offences under Sections 120B, 201, 419, 468, 471, and 420 IPC, and warranted a full police investigation. The High Court’s reliance on the word “further” in the Magistrate’s order was misplaced, and its interference violated principles laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure, which cautions against quashing genuine criminal investigations at a preliminary stage.

Summary: The appellant alleged that the accused forged a Rent Agreement dated 20.05.2013 on a fake E-Stamp Paper to show antecedent tenancy and defeat the High Court’s status quo order concerning the suit property. Verification from the Department of Stamps revealed that the E-Stamp number used for the Rent Agreement actually corresponded to an unrelated Sale Agreement between third parties, exposing fabrication. The Magistrate, relying on this material and allegations of illegal entry, tampering of locks, and construction activity in breach of injunction, referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3). The High Court quashed the proceedings through two separate orders on the ground that the Magistrate mechanically ordered “further investigation” without application of mind and that the civil suit findings favoured the accused. The Supreme Court found these reasons untenable, explaining that the Magistrate had not ordered “further investigation” under Section 173(8) but a pre-cognizance investigation under Section 156(3), which was appropriate in the circumstances. The Court emphasised that civil outcomes do not bar criminal liability when forgery, fabrication, fraud on the court, and interference with the justice system are alleged. Applying Madhao, Ramdev Food Products, Neeharika Infrastructure, and Samee Khan, the Court held that the High Court’s quashing was premature and contrary to settled law.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s orders dated 24.07.2019 and 18.11.2021, and restored FIR No. 12/2018 registered at Khade Bazar Police Station, directing the police to conduct a full and expeditious investigation. It clarified that the observations in the judgment are confined to deciding the question of quashing and will not prejudice the parties on merits in civil or criminal proceedings. All pending applications were closed, and no order as to costs was made.