JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – original appellant State under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and Section 175(3) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) against the impugned order passed by the learned 10th Additional District Judge, Surat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Sessions Court’) in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5559 of 2024 dated 13.12.2024, whereby, the learned Trial Court has rejected the application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS filed by the appellant. 1.1 The original appellant is hereinafter referred to as “the appellant” as she stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1. The appellant is co-owner of Block No. 220, old tenure land admeasuring 16,086 sq. meters situated at Village Siwan, Taluka Olpad, District Surat, holding an undivided share of about 3,567 sq. meters. In the month of August, 2023, Bharat Kataria, a land broker, induced the appellant to sell her undivided share by representing that he would secure a purchaser offering a fair price, namely one Raju Patil. In the month of September 2023, Bharat Kataria and Raju Patil visited the appellant’s residence and to purchase her undivided share for a total consideration of Rs.78,51,000/-. It was agreed that part consideration would be paid by cheque and the balance in cash. Pursuant thereto, the appellant was called on 13.10.2023 to the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Olpad, where she met Bharat Kataria, Raju Patil, and Kalpesh Dhirubhai Ahir and she was informed that since Raju Patil was not an agriculturist, the sale deed would be executed in favour of Kalpesh Ahir, who was his partner. On the said date, the appellant executed documents at the Sub-Registrar’s office and was handed over one cheque of Rs.8,10,000/-. The accused promised that the balance sum of Rs.70,41,000/- would be arranged and paid within a short time. However, the said balance was never paid despite repeated demands. When the appellant approached Kalpesh Ahir demanding payment, he not only avoided payment but also abused her in caste-related derogatory terms and threatened her with dire consequences. The accused promised that the balance sum of Rs.70,41,000/- would be arranged and paid within a short time. However, the said balance was never paid despite repeated demands. When the appellant approached Kalpesh Ahir demanding payment, he not only avoided payment but also abused her in caste-related derogatory terms and threatened her with dire consequences. The appellant gave an application to the Police Inspector, Olpad Police Station on 11.01.2024 alleging that she had been cheated and the application was received by the Olpad Police Station on 11.01.2024 and the applicant gave copy of the application to the Superintendent of Police, Surat (Rural), Surat, but the FIR was not registered. While collecting records, the appellant discovered forged documents i.e. an application and affidavit for conversion of land from “dry” to “irrigated land” purportedly bearing her signatures and thumb impression. The said affidavit was notarized and subsequently used by Kalpesh Ahir for obtaining permissions from the competent authority and for mutation in revenue records. The appellant asserts that she never executed such documents and the same are forged with a view to misappropriate her property. Hence, on 22.06.2024, the appellant once again gave a detailed application alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the IPC and under Sections 1.1(5)(9)(10) and 2(5) of the Atrocities Act. The application was received by the Olpad Police Station and a copy of the same was also addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Surat (Rural), Surat, which was received by the Police Control Room, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Surat (Rural), Surat on 22.06.2024 at 14:23 hours. Despite submitting the application with certified copies of the forged documents to Olpad Police Station and Superintendent of Police, Surat (Rural) Surat, no FIR was registered. The appellant also filed Special Civil Suit No. 37 of 2024 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Olpad, District Surat, for cancellation of the sale deed and subsequent transactions and filed an application under Section 173(1) of the BNSS (Old Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.) before the Court of Sessions Judge, Surat alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC (Old Code), together with offences under Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(q), and 2(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2.2. 2.2. The learned 10 th Additional District Judge and Special Judge (Atrocity) Surat was pleased to register the application at Criminal Miscellaneous Register and called for a report from the Olpad Police Station of the inquiry conducted into the application of the applicant as the application of the applicant was received by the Olpad Police Station and the Superintendent of the Police, Surat (Rural), Surat. A report dated 30.08.2024 was submitted by the Police Sub Inspector R.H.Maru, Olpad Police Station, wherein, it was stated that the dealing of the land was finalized within the jurisdiction of Kim Police Station and the transaction had also taken place within the jurisdiction of Kim Police Station, and hence, the applicant was informed to approach Kim Police Station. The learned Sessions Court, considering the report of Police Sub Inspector R.H.Maru dated 30.08.2024, Olpad Police Station, was pleased to reject the application of the applicant by the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned 10 th Additional District Judge and Special Judge (Atrocity) Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No.5559 of 2024 on 13.12.2024, the appellant has filed the present appeal mainly contending that both the complaints disclose cognizable offences for forgery and fraud against the appellant and the application and affidavit are forged and the signatures on them are not that of the appellant. The offence of fraud, misappropriation and forgery are clearly spelt out in the complaints to the police and the affidavit in the Sessions court and the appellant has made categorical averments in both the complaints with regard to the offence of forgery. The learned Sessions Court has not considered the offence of forgery and even the forged documents have not been sent to the FSL laboratory for scientific opinion and the police report does not disclose any investigation with regard to the offence of forgery. The appellant has categorically stated that Kalpesh Ahir has dishonestly used a forged documents as genuine for which investigation is required. The person using the documents had knowledge that the said documents are forged documents and they have used the documents to gain illegal advantage and have forged an affidavit. An investigation is required for the offence which relates to conspiracy and forgery and hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. An investigation is required for the offence which relates to conspiracy and forgery and hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Chintan Mehta for the appellant and learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the respondent – State. 5. In view of the order passed by this Court on 11.09.2025, A.J.Desai, Police Sub Inspector, Olpad Police Station, has personally remained present before this Court. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Chintan Mehta for the appellant submits that both the application lodged before the police clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences of fraud, misappropriation and forgery by the accused persons as the application and affidavit in question are forged documents and the signatures thereon are not that of the original appellant Ranjanben. The appellant herself has categorically stated so in both the applications as well as in the affidavit filed before the learned Sessions Court. Despite these specific allegations, the learned Sessions Court has completely failed to consider the aspect of forgery in the impugned order, and has not recorded any finding with regard to the said offence. Learned advocate further submits that the police have not even sent the disputed documents to the F.S.L. for scientific opinion and the police report is silent on the offence of forgery and such lapse has resulted in an incomplete investigation. Kalpesh Ahir has knowingly and dishonestly used the forged documents as genuine in revenue proceedings and therefore offences of forgery, conspiracy and cheating are clearly made out against him. Learned advocate submits that the report dated 30.08.2024 by Police Inspector, Olpad Police Station, directing the appellant to approach Kim Police Station, does not contain any categorical findings about the forged documents. Learned advocate further submits that the learned Sessions Court’s finding that no documentary evidence was tendered by the appellant is factually incorrect, inasmuch as certified copies of the forged documents obtained from the Mamlatdar Office, Olpad, were placed on record along with the affidavit of the appellant. Learned advocate, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. reported in 2013 (0) Supreme (SC) 1032 , submits that once a complaint discloses cognizable offences, registration and investigation are mandatory. In the present case, despite clear averments in the complaints and affidavit, the mandate of law has not been followed. In the present case, despite clear averments in the complaints and affidavit, the mandate of law has not been followed. On the basis of the above, learned advocate further submits that there exists a prima-facie case of fraud, forgery and misappropriation and a deeper investigation is required and therefore, the appellant has no alternative or efficacious remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court, and hence, the order passed by the learned Sessions Court must be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the respondent – State submits that the report of Olpad Police Station has been placed on record, which inter alia records that the appellant had of her free will executed the sale deed, received part consideration, and that any grievance about balance consideration would be in the realm of civil dispute and the land falls within the jurisdiction of Kim Police Station. Learned APP further submits that the learned Sessions Court has considered the report of the PSI, Olpad Police Station in true perspective and has not committed any error in passing the impugned order and hence, no interference of this Court is required in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court and has urged this Court to reject the appeal. 8. On perusal of the paper book produced on record by the learned advocate for the appellant and considering the submission of the respective parties, it is clear that the appellant has not only alleged less payment of sale consideration but has also specifically alleged that forged documents were created and used in revenue proceedings. She has stated that her signatures and thumb impression were forged on an affidavit and on an application for land conversion from the dry to irrigated land and these are serious allegations of commission of cognizable offences. Whether these allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter of evidence, but at this stage, the question is only whether the information ex-facie discloses the commission of any cognizable offences. 8.1. At this juncture, it would be fit to reproduce the observations made by the Apex Court in para 73 to 76 in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra) ; which are as under: “ 73. 8.1. At this juncture, it would be fit to reproduce the observations made by the Apex Court in para 73 to 76 in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra) ; which are as under: “ 73. In terms of the language used in Section 154 of the Code, the police is duty bound to proceed to conduct investigation into a cognizable offence even without receiving information (i.e. FIR) about commission of such an offence, if the officer in charge of the police station otherwise suspects the commission of such an offence. The legislative intent is therefore quite clear, i.e., to ensure that every cognizable offence is promptly investigated in accordance with law. This being the legal position, there is no reason that there should be any discretion or option left with the police to register or not to register an FIR when information is given about the commission of a cognizable offence. Every cognizable offence must be investigated promptly in accordance with law and all information provided under Section 154 of the Code about the commission of a cognizable offence must be registered as an FIR so as to initiate an offence. The requirement of Section 154 of the Code is only that the report must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and that is sufficient to set the investigating machinery into action. 74. The insertion of sub-section (3) of Section 154, by way of an amendment, reveals the intention of the legislature to ensure that no information of commission of a cognizable offence must be ignored or not acted upon which would result in unjustified protection of the alleged offender/accused. 75. The maxim expression unius est exclusion alterius (expression of one thing is the exclusion of another) applies in the interpretation of Section 154 of the Code, where the mandate of recording the information in writing excludes the possibility of not recording an information of commission of a cognizable crime in the special register. 76. Therefore, conducting an investigation into an offence after registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code is the “procedure established by law” and, thus, is in conformity with Article 21 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution is protected if the FIR is registered first and then the investigation is conducted in accordance with the provisions of law.” 8.2. Accordingly, the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution is protected if the FIR is registered first and then the investigation is conducted in accordance with the provisions of law.” 8.2. The directions of the Apex Court in Para-111 are reproduced as under: “111. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: (i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. (ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. (iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. (iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. (v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. (vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. (vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. (vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. (viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.” As discussed above, the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari (Supra) has held that registration of FIR is mandatory when the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and the police officer has no discretion in that regard. The learned Sessions Court, while rejecting the application, ignored the issue of forgery and has merely treated the matter as a purely civil dispute. The fact that the appellant produced certified copies of the disputed documents was also not considered and in these circumstances, the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and illegality. Moreover, the learned Sessions Court has not opined as to whether the Olpad Police Station or the Kim Police Station would have jurisdiction to investigate the matter and has relied upon the report of R.H.Maru, Police Sub Inspector, Olpad Police Station which states that Kim Police Station has jurisdiction of the matter and has passed the impugned order. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Court deserves to be quashed and set aside, and the matter is required to be remanded back to the learned Sessions Court for fresh consideration in light of the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari (supra). 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court rejecting the application for registration of FIR is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Sessions Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (Supra) 10. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court rejecting the application for registration of FIR is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Sessions Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (Supra) 10. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and all issues are left open for consideration by the learned Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Court shall decide the application afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a reasonable time. The criminal appeal stands disposed of accordingly.