The Magistrate must provide reasons for ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and failure to do so warrants quashing of the proceedings.

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.313 of 2021 on the file of II Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2, the 1^st respondent herein is the defacto complainant. The 1^st respondent herein has filed a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) read with 200 Cr.P.C., on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada stating that the petitioner No.2 is the wife of the 1^st petitioner. The 1^st respondent is working as police constable in Kakinada and the 1^st petitioner herein is ARSI in Armed Reserve Police, Kakinada and does real estate business. As a part of his business, the 1^st petitioner herein has offered to sell the property situated in Raydupalem village, Sy.No.84/4, plot No.13 to an extent of 149 square yards which stands in the name of the 2^nd petitioner herein.

3. Accordingly, the petitioners herein with fraudulent intention to cheat the 1^st respondent have offered to sell the said property by furnishing the Xerox copies of fake documents, believing which the 1^st respondent has paid Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash and Rs.5,00,000/- by way of a cheque, which amount was availed as a loan from A.P. Police Housing Protection Scheme and thereafter a sale agreement dated 16.09.2014 was also executed by the 1^st respondent. Subsequently, the 1^st respondent came to know that the 2^nd petitioner is the GPA holder for accused No.3 and the said deed of GPA was executed on 27.03.2006 vide document NO.1635 of 2006 within SRO Samalkot, East Godavari District. The 1^st respondent further came to know that the accused No.3 has purchased the said property under registered document No.832/1980 within SRO Samalkot from one Malireddy Surya Chakaramma.

4. After due enquiries, the 1st respondent got to know that the deed of GPA dated 27.03.2006 which was registered vide document No.1635/2006 within SRO Samalkot, East Godavari District and the sale deed vide registered document No.832/1980 within SRO Samalkot as well as the sale agreement dated 16.09.2014 executed by the 2nd petitioner herein in favour of the 1st respondent herein are false and fabricated. All the accused, including the petitioners herein, with a fraudulent intention to cheat the 1st respondent and to gain wrongfully have inducted the 1st respondent to enter into an agreement by receiving a total amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. It is further stated in the complaint that the petitioners herein have conspired with other accused and intentionally fabricated document as that of an original document and have forged the signature of the Sub-Registrar.

5. It is further stated that the 1^st respondent made a complaint before the 2^nd respondent and on 10.09.2020 the said complaint was sent to the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, as no action was initiated, the 1^st respondent has submitted the complaint before the III Additional Judicial First Class Masgistrate, Kakinada, wherein, the complaint was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and the Police were directed to investigate into the matter vide order dated 17.09.2021. Hence, the police have registered a case against the accused in FIR No.313 of 2021 on the file of II Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District, challenging which the petitioners have filed the present petition requesting to quash the same as not maintainable.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the learned Judge has not applied his mind while passing the orders dated 17.09.2021 as he has not taken into consideration whether there are prima facie allegations and material for the alleged offence warranting any investigation by the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the learned Judge has failed to see that the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., can be exercised only if the complaint discloses the commission of the offence. He