The Supreme Court has held that a Magistrate is not required to record pre-charge evidence under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before committing such cases to the Sessions Court.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh ruled that insisting on such evidence would be contrary to the legislative intent behind Section 209 CrPC and would unnecessarily delay criminal trials.
The case arose from an incident that occurred on 12 April 2007, during which a physical altercation allegedly took place between the complainant and the accused. The complainant’s father reportedly collapsed during the incident and was declared dead at the hospital. After repeated representations seeking registration of an FIR, the complainant approached the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, following which proceedings under Section 200 CrPC were initiated.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
The Magistrate recorded preliminary evidence before issuing summoning orders, and the matter was subsequently committed to the Sessions Court. However, while dealing with revision petitions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Magistrate ought to have recorded pre-charge evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing the case, and accordingly remanded the matter.
The principal question before the Supreme Court was:
Whether a Magistrate is required to record evidence under Section 244 CrPC in a complaint case involving offences exclusively triable by a Court of Session before committing the case under Section 209 CrPC?
The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative.
The Bench observed that Section 209 CrPC imposes only a limited duty upon the Magistrate. Once the Magistrate finds that the alleged offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session and complies with procedural requirements under Sections 207 or 208 CrPC, the Magistrate must commit the case to the Sessions Court without undertaking an evaluation of evidence on merits.
The Court emphasized that requiring a Magistrate to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 in such cases would result in witnesses being examined twice—once before the Magistrate and again during the Sessions trial—without serving any useful legal purpose.
According to the Court, such an interpretation would frustrate the legislative objective of expediting serious criminal trials.
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had incorrectly relied upon earlier decisions including: Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand, Sunil Mehta v. State of Gujarat, and Harinarayan G. Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra
The Bench explained that each of these decisions dealt with situations where the offences were triable by Magistrates or concerned different procedural questions. They did not govern cases involving offences exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
Therefore, the High Court’s reliance on those precedents was held to be legally unsustainable.
The Court extensively referred to earlier Constitution Bench and three-Judge Bench decisions explaining the legislative evolution from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to the 1973 Code.
It noted that Parliament deliberately abolished elaborate committal inquiries because they caused substantial delay without contributing meaningfully to criminal justice. The Magistrate’s role at the committal stage has now been consciously narrowed to a procedural one.
The Bench relied upon landmark decisions including: Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Ashutosh Ghosh, Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India, State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, and Rattiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
These authorities consistently hold that a Magistrate should not undertake a merits-based assessment while committing a Sessions-triable case.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s remand order.
Instead of directing fresh proceedings before the Magistrate, the Court restored the matter to the High Court for fresh adjudication on the pending revision petitions concerning the framing of charges.
Considering that charges had already been framed against one accused in 2011, the Supreme Court requested the High Court to dispose of both revision petitions within nine months, with the parties directed to appear before the High Court on 16 July 2026.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
