Case: Neeraj Gupta v. Pardeep Kumar Bansal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 660 | Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 776 of 2026 | Decided on 01.07.2026.
Headnotes
-
Complaint Case—Offence exclusively triable by Court of Session—Section 244 Cr.P.C.—Inapplicability.
Where a complaint discloses offences exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Magistrate is not required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. before committing the case under Section 209 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate's function at the stage of commitment is confined to statutory compliance and commitment of the case. (Paras 6–13) -
Section 209 Cr.P.C.—Commitment proceedings—Nature of Magistrate's jurisdiction.
The role of the Magistrate at the stage of commitment under Section 209 Cr.P.C. is administrative and ministerial in character. The Magistrate is not expected to undertake an evaluation of the merits of the prosecution case or hold a pre-trial inquiry before committing the case to the Court of Session. (Paras 10–13) -
Section 244 Cr.P.C.—Scope.
Section 244 Cr.P.C. applies only to warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report which are triable by a Magistrate. It has no application where the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Session. (Paras 7–9, 13) -
Commitment Proceedings—No duplication of evidence.
Acceptance of the view that prosecution evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. must be recorded even in Sessions triable complaint cases would unnecessarily compel witnesses to depose twice regarding the same facts, contrary to the legislative intent of expeditious criminal trials. (Para 9) -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Legislative scheme—Abolition of elaborate committal inquiry.
The 1973 Code consciously abolished the elaborate committal inquiry contemplated under the Code of 1898. The Legislature intended to eliminate delay by restricting the Magistrate's role and leaving consideration of evidence and framing of charge to the Sessions Court. (Paras 12–13) -
Magistrate—No adjudication on merits at commitment stage.
At the stage of Sections 207 to 209 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate cannot examine the sufficiency of evidence, assess guilt, or determine whether additional accused should be added or excluded. Such questions fall within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. (Paras 10–12) -
High Court—Remand to Magistrate for recording evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C.—Unsustainable.
The High Court erred in remanding the matter to the Magistrate for compliance with Section 244 Cr.P.C. The impugned order was set aside as being contrary to the statutory scheme governing commitment of Sessions triable offences. (Paras 13–14) -
Revision—Challenge to discharge and framing of charge—Remand.
Upon setting aside the erroneous remand order, the Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide afresh both the complainant's revision challenging discharge of two accused and the revision filed by the accused challenging the framing of charge, independently and expeditiously. (Paras 14–15)
Cases Referred
- Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand — distinguished; Section 244 applicable to Magistrate-triable warrant cases. (Para 8.1)
- Sunil Mehta v. State of Gujarat — distinguished. (Para 8.3)
- Harinarayan G. Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra — distinguished. (Para 8.2)
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab — followed on the limited role of the Magistrate at the commitment stage. (Para 10)
- Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Ashutosh Ghosh — followed; no evidence required before commitment. (Para 11)
- State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi — followed on the legislative object behind Section 209 Cr.P.C. and abolition of committal inquiry. (Para 12.1)
- Rattiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh — followed regarding the restricted role of the Magistrate in commitment proceedings. (Para 12.2)
No comments:
Post a Comment