Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate's Duty in Sessions‑Triable Complaint Cases

The Supreme Court, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, ruled that a Magistrate is not obligated to record pre‑charge evidence under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the offence alleged in a complaint case is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. The judgment set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had directed the Magistrate to undertake such an exercise.

The dispute arose from a complaint in which the allegations included murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, an offence that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. The Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court without recording the prosecution’s evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. The prosecution challenged this order before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, contending that the Magistrate had failed to comply with Section 244 Cr.P.C. (and the corresponding provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 267). The High Court allowed the prosecution’s plea, quashed the Magistrate’s order and held that a Magistrate must hear all prosecution evidence irrespective of whether the offence is triable by the Magistrate or the Sessions Court. The High Court reasoned that requiring the Magistrate to act as a mere conduit for the prosecution would undermine the investigatory function.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the complainant approached the Supreme Court. The central question before the apex court was whether a Magistrate must record evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. when the offence is strictly triable by the Sessions Court.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning. Justice Karol, who authored the opinion, observed that the High Court’s view would frustrate the legislative intent behind the Code. The Court noted that the Legislature had deliberately dispensed with the requirement of hearing and taking evidence at the pre‑committal stage for cases that are to be tried by the Sessions Court. The Bench emphasized that if the High Court’s position were accepted, it would compel witnesses to depose on the same set of facts twice—once before the Magistrate and again before the Sessions Court—without any legal necessity or evidentiary benefit.

The Court further clarified the scope of Section 244 Cr.P.C., stating that this provision forms part of the procedure governing warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report and triable by Magistrates. It distinguished the 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—pointing out that each of those decisions dealt with offences triable by Magistrates or addressed different legal questions, and therefore could not be extended to justify the application of Section 244 to Sessions‑triable complaint cases.

Drawing on earlier authority, the Bench quoted Justice Krishna Iyer’s observation in Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCC 39, describing the Magistrate’s power as a ‘narrow inspection hole’. The Court reiterated that the Magistrate’s role at the committal stage is limited to ensuring compliance with Sections 207 and 208 of the Code (supply of documents to the accused) and to commit the case if the offence appears exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The Magistrate is not required to conduct a mini‑trial or to evaluate the merits of the prosecution’s case.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Magistrate’s committal of the complaint case to the Sessions Court. The judgment is cited as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 651, with the cause title NEERAJ GUPTA Versus PARDEEP KUMAR BANSAL & ORS.