Magistrate Not Required to Record Pre-Charge Evidence in Complaints Triable Exclusively by Court of Session

In April 2007, an altercation occurred between the appellant and his father against the respondents, resulting in the father's death

No FIR was registered initially, prompting the appellant to file a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC

Following a process under Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate issued summoning orders for offences including Section 302 IPC and committed the case to the Court of Sessions

The Sessions Court framed charges only against Respondent No. 2, discharging Respondents No. 1 and 3

Upon revision, the High Court of Punjab Haryana remanded the matter to the Magistrate, holding that Section 244 CrPC requires the Magistrate to record pre-charge evidence in complaint cases, even for offences triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions

Whether a Magistrate is required to record evidence under Section 244 of the CrPC when the offence alleged is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions

Section 200 CrPC regarding the examination of complainants

Section 209 CrPC, which mandates the commitment of cases to the Court of Sessions when an offence is exclusively triable by it

The court distinguished Section 244 CrPC, which applies specifically to warrant cases triable by a Magistrate

Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, clarifying that at the pre-trial stage (Sections 207-209), the Magistrate performs administrative rather than judicial functions and cannot delve into the merits

State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi and Rattiram v. State of M.P., which established that the 1973 Code consciously abolished the lengthy "committal inquiry" of the 1898 Code to prevent inordinate delays.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in applying Section 244 CrPC to a sessions-triable case

The Court reasoned that once a Magistrate finds an offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court under Section 209, their role is restricted to a "narrow inspection hole"—performing administrative tasks like ensuring compliance with Sections 207 and 208 and committing the record

The Court noted that the legislative intent of the 1973 Code was to dispense with pre-trial rehearsals (committal inquiries) to ensure expeditious trials

Thus, requiring a Magistrate to record evidence before commitment would stay in conflict with the objective of the Code and force witnesses to depose twice unnecessarily

The precedents cited by the High Court (Sunil Mehta, etc.) were found inapplicable as they pertained to offences within the Magistrate's trial jurisdiction

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order of remand. It directed the High Court to hear the revision petitions regarding the framing of charges and discharge afresh on their merits, with a request to decide the same within nine months. Parties were directed to appear before the High Court on July 16, 2026