The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 1) held that a Magistrate is not required to record pre-charge evidence under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before committing a complaint case involving offences exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, setting aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had directed such an exercise

“…the only requirement from the Magistrate is to see whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and in doing so, no evidence need be taken.”, the Court cited the observation made in Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Ashutosh Ghosh, (1979) 4 SCC 381.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard the case where the magistrate had committed the complaint case to the Court of Sessions without recording the prosecution's evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C., as the alleged offence of murder (Section 302 IPC) was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

Aggrieved by the magistrate's order, the prosecution approached the High Court, citing non-compliance with Section 244 of Cr.P.C.

The High Court set aside the Magistrate's order for non-compliance with Section 244 Cr.P.C./Section 267 of BNSS. The High Court said that a Magistrate must hear all prosecution evidence irrespective of whether or not the offence with which the evidence is concerned is triable by the Magistrate or not.

Challenging the High Court's decision, the complainant moved to the Supreme Court.

The issue was whether a Magistrate must record evidence when the offence is strictly triable by the Court of Sessions, as in this case, where the allegations were inter alia under Section 302 IPC.

The High Court had reasoned that even in complaint cases involving Sessions-triable offences, the Magistrate must record pre-charge evidence before committing the matter, observing that the Magistrate should not act as a "mouthpiece of the prosecution."

Rejecting this approach, the Supreme Court said such a requirement finds no support in the CrPC.

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Karol observed that if the High Court's reasoning is accepted, then it would frustrate the objective of the Code, as the magistrate is not required to record evidence or hold a mini-trial while committing a case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of CrPC/Section 232 of BNSS.

“…the Legislature has consciously built in this difference of doing away with the hearing and evidence at pre-committal stage.”, observed the Court, referring to the precedents, which held against the Magistrate going into the merits of the matter.

The Court noted that accepting the High Court's reasoning would compel witnesses to depose twice on the same facts,first before the Magistrate and then before the Sessions Court,without any legal necessity.

"If the reasoning of the High Court is accepted, a number of witnesses would be required to depose about the same set of facts and circumstances, at least twice. This may not be of any particular use, nor mandate of law," the judgment stated.

Section 244 Applies to Magistrate-Triable Warrant Cases

The Bench clarified that Section 244 CrPC forms part of the procedure governing warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report and triable by Magistrates.

The Court distinguished three precedents relied upon by the High Court, Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand, Harinarayan G. Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra, and Sunil Mehta v. State of Gujarat, holding that each dealt with offences triable by Magistrates or different legal questions, and therefore could not justify extending Section 244 to Sessions-triable complaint cases.

“The power of the Magistrate has been described to be a 'narrow inspection hole'.”, the Court quoted the observation of Justice Krishna Iyer in Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCC 39, emphasizing that the magistrate's role is limited to ensuring compliance with Sections 207/208 CrPC (supply of documents to the accused), and committing the case if the offence appears exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: NEERAJ GUPTA Versus PARDEEP KUMAR BANSAL & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ankit Monga, Adv. Mr. B.L.N Sanjith, Adv. Mr. Shankar Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Shubhaankar Ray, Adv. Ms. Rakhi Ray, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Adv. Mr. Akshay Nagarjuna, Adv. Mr. Akash Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR