Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Sadiq B. Hanchinmani – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka & Ors. – Respondents
R1: The State of Karnataka
R2: Chndrumal
R3: Sanjay
R4: Nandkumar
R5: Vijay
Criminal Appeal No. 4728 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11336 of 2022]
With
Sadiq B. Hanchinmani – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka & Ors. – Respondents
R1: The State Of Karnataka
R2: Mrs. Veena
R3: Madhav
Criminal Appeal No. 4729 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 17649 of 2025] [@ Diary No. 39619 of 2022]
Decided On : 04-11-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 201, 419, 471, 468 and 420 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 156(3) and 482 – Conspiracy, forgery and cheating – Direction for Police investigation quashed by High Court – Even if an injunction order is subsequently set aside, consequences for breach/violation of same when it subsisted, could still befall upon violator – Enough material is available to justify full-fledged investigation by police – JMFC had rightly referred the matter for investigation to Police since a prima facie case stood made out against accused, in view of material that was available with JMFC – Impugned orders set aside – Police directed to investigate the case expeditiously in accordance with law. (Paras 36, 38, 43 and 44)
Facts of the case:
Appellant-complainant lodged private complaint against the private respondents under Sections 120B, 201, 419, 471, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Vide impugned Judgment, High Court allowed accused-private respondents’ petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and quashed criminal proceedings.
Findings of Court:
Private parties shall be at liberty to produce material to indicate their defence(s)/position during police investigation as also before Court concerned, in accordance with law, at appropriate stage.
Result : Appeals allowed.
The legal document discusses the circumstances under which a Magistrate can direct a police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It emphasizes that such a direction must be based on sufficient material and proper application of judicial mind, and it should not be issued arbitrarily or without proper grounds (!) (!) (!) .
The judgment clarifies that even if an injunction or other court order is later set aside, the consequences of breaches or violations that occurred while the order was in effect can still be enforced against the violator (!) . This underscores the importance of respecting court orders and the potential legal repercussions for violations during their subsistence, regardless of subsequent legal developments.
Furthermore, the decision highlights that a private complaint disclosing cognizable offences provides a valid basis for the Magistrate to refer the matter for police investigation, provided there is enough prima facie material to justify such action (!) . The Court stresses that the police have a statutory obligation to investigate genuine complaints of cognizable offences, and the High Court should exercise caution before interfering with ongoing investigations unless there are clear reasons to do so (!) (!) .
In the case at hand, the Court found that the Magistrate had correctly referred the matter for investigation based on the available material, including allegations of forgery, fabrication, and conspiracy related to forged documents and fake stamp papers (!) (!) . The Court also notes that irregularities in procedure, such as the Magistrate’s order to investigate, do not necessarily vitiate proceedings if done in good faith and based on credible material (!) .
Finally, the judgment underscores that the Court's role in quashing or staying investigations should be exercised with caution, ensuring that the statutory obligation of the police to investigate genuine offences is not unduly hindered, especially when the allegations are substantiated by prima facie evidence (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted in both petitions.
3. The instant criminal appeals, at the instance of the complainant, seek to assail the Final Judgments and Orders dated 18.11.2021 in CRLP No.100651/2018 [2021:KHC-D:90] (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Second Impugned Order’) and dated 24.07.2019 in CRLP No.100549/2018 [2019:KHC-D:5908] (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Impugned Order’) passed by two learned Single Judges of the High Court of Karnataka, Bench at Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’), whereby the High Court allowed the accused-private respondents’ petitions under Section 482[1 ‘482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.— Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.’] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’), consequently quashing the Order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-III Court, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘JMFC’), insofar as it related to the respective accused-private respondents.
BRIEF FACTS:
4. The appellant-complainant lodged a private complaint viz. PCR No.1/2018 before the JMFC against the private respondents under Sections 120B, 201, 419, 471, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’).
5. The appellant-complainant had filed a suit being O.S. No.43/2009 before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi, seeking a declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit property as per oral gift by his father and also to declare the Sale Deed dated 03.02.2009 executed by his father Bashirahmad in favour of accused no.1 as illegal, void and not binding on him. It is relevant to note that Bashirahmad remained ex-parte since he did not contest the suit. The matter was heard and the suit came to be dismissed on 28.03.2013. Consequently, the appellant preferred an appeal being R.F.A. No.4095/2013 before the High Court. An interim application under Order XLI Rule 52[‘5. Stay by Appellate Court.— (1) An appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the Appellate Court may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree.
Explanation.—An order by the Appellate Court for the stay of execution of the decree shall be effective from the date of the communication of such order to the Court of first instance, but an affidavit sworn by the appellant, based on his personal knowledge, stating that an order for the stay of execution of the decree has been made by the Appellate Court shall, pending the receipt from the Appellate Court of the order for the stay of execution or any order to the contrary, be acted upon by the Court of first instance.
(2) Stay by Court which passed the decree.—Where an application is made for stay of execution of an appealable decree before the expiration of the time allowed for appealing therefrom, the Court which passed the decree may on sufficient cause being shown order the execution to be stayed.
(3) No order for stay of execution shall be made under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) unless the Court making it is satisfied—
(a) that substantial loss may result to the party applying for stay of execution unless the order is made;
(b) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and
(c) that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him.
(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), the Court may make an ex parte order for stay of execution pending the hearing of the applic
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
