Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Bombay High Court at Goa Dismisses Review Petition in Partition Suit Impleadment...
Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witn...

HomeJudgement

Scroll Down To Discover

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Examines Whether Magistrate Properly Exercised Discretion Under Section 202 CrPC Instead of Ordering Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC. Appeal Challenges High Court's Refusal to Interfere with Magistrate's Order in Forgery and Cheating Case.

Admin

2026-08-01 11:10:21

Font size:

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Magistrate should have ordered investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC instead of further inquiry under Section 202(1) CrPC given the allegations of forgery requiring seizure of documents?

Case Details

2015 LawText (SC) (03) 92

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.600 OF 2007

Adarsh Kumar Goel

Ramdev Food Products Private Limited

State of Gujarat

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against High Court order upholding Magistrate's direction for further inquiry under Section 202 CrPC instead of investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought direction for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Filing Reason

Alleged commission of offences under IPC Sections 409, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B and 114, involving forgery of partnership documents to usurp trademark.

Previous Decisions

High Court declined to interfere with Magistrate's order dated 16th August 2005; Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanand directed report under Section 202(1) CrPC instead of investigation.

Issues

Whether the Magistrate should have ordered investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC instead of further inquiry under Section 202(1) CrPC given the allegations of forgery requiring seizure of documents?

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the Magistrate failed to apply his mind as the allegations involved forgery and the documents needed to be seized, which warranted investigation under Section 156(3) and not just further inquiry.

Judgment Excerpts

The High Court declined to interfere with the Order dated 16th August, 2005, of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanand on a complaint filed by the appellant against fourteen accused for alleged commission of offences under Sections 409, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code directing the Police Sub-Inspector, Sanand, to give a report to the Court within thirty days under Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) instead of directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, as sought by the appellant. The appellant sought direction for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. However, the Magistrate instead of directing investigation as prayed, thought it fit to conduct further inquiry under Section 202 and sought report of the Police Sub Inspector within thirty days.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a complaint before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanand, alleging offences under IPC. On 16th August 2005, the Magistrate directed police to submit a report under Section 202(1) CrPC within 30 days instead of ordering investigation under Section 156(3). The appellant challenged this order before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No.1821 of 2005. The High Court vide judgment dated 17th February 2006 declined to interfere. Hence, this appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code, 1860: 409, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 114
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 156(3), 202(1)

One-Time Download (₹149 ₹99) Get Subscription

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge to Slum Acquisition Proceedings Based on Adverse Possession Claim. Petitioners' claim of adverse possession not established; acquisition under Maharashtra Slum Areas Act upheld. 2026-08-01 11:10:21

Supreme Court Supreme Court Examines Whether Magistrate Properly Exercised Discretion Under Section 202 CrPC Instead of Ordering Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC. Appeal Challenges High Court's Refusal to Interfere with Magistrate's Order in Forgery and Che... 2026-08-01 11:10:21

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)

Supreme Court Examines Whether Magistrate Properly Exercised Discretion Under Section 202 CrPC Instead of Ordering Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC. Appeal Challenges High Court's Refusal to Interfere with Magistrate's Order in Forgery and Cheating Case.

Issue of Consideration

Case Details

Nature of Litigation

Remedy Sought

Filing Reason

Previous Decisions

Issues

Submissions/Arguments

Judgment Excerpts

Procedural History

Acts & Sections

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

Bombay High Court at Goa Dismisses Review Petition in Partition Suit Impleadment Case — ...

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witness and La...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Case — Death Not Arising Out of Use ...

Supreme Court Allows Appeals Against High Court Order Staying Arbitral Proceedings and Rej...

Supreme Court Upholds SEBI's Order Against Kotak Mutual Fund for Violating SEBI Circular o...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Claimant in Motor Accident Case — Functional Disability A...

Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Forgery Case Due to Long Pendency and No Criminal Antec...