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

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The Court held that a Magistrate is not required to record evidence under Section 244 CrPC for cases triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions

It also directed

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

01Facts

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

p. 2, para 3.1

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

p. 2, para 3.2

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

p. 3, para 3.3, 6

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

p. 3, para 3.3

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

p. 3, para 4

02Issues

i.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

p. 4, para 6

03Law Applied

Section 200 CrPC regarding the examination of complainants

p. 5

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

p. 5

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

p. 6

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

pp. 8-9, para 10

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.

p. 10 · p. 11

Provisions in the judgment · 24 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 17 provisions

Section 156 Section 173 Section 192 Section 193 Section 200 Section 202 Section 207 Section 208 Section 209 Section 227 Section 228 Section 238 Section 239 Section 244 Section 245 Section 246 Section 319

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 114 Section 177 Section 181 Section 302 Section 406 Section 468 Section 471

04Reasoning

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

p. 6, para 8.1

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

pp. 8-9

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

pp. 11-12

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

p. 8, para 9

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

p. 8, para 8.3