Facts
Following an altercation in April 2007, the appellant's father died. After the police failed to register an FIR, the appellant initiated proceedings under S.156(3) CrPC, leading to a complaint under S.200 CrPC. Upon recording pre-summoning evidence, the Magistrate summoned the accused and committed the case, involving offences including S.302 IPC, to the Court of Session. Charges were framed only against one accused. In revision, the High Court remanded the matter to the Magistrate, holding that prosecution evidence under S.244 CrPC had to be recorded before commitment. The complainant challenged that order.
Issues Framed
Whether a Magistrate is required to record prosecution evidence under S.244 CrPC before committing a complaint case involving offences exclusively triable by the Court of Session under S.209 CrPC.
Court's Reasoning
(a) Legal Rule
The Court held that S.244 CrPC applies only to warrant cases triable by a Magistrate and has no application where the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. Under S.209 CrPC, the Magistrate's function is confined to ensuring statutory compliance and committing the case; it is not to evaluate evidence or conduct a pre-trial inquiry.
(b) Precedents Relied Upon
The Court distinguished Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand, Sunil Mehta v. State of Gujarat, and Harinarayan G. Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra, holding that each concerned cases triable by Magistrates or different statutory contexts. It relied upon Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, Supdt. and 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 M.P., which recognise that the 1973 CrPC abolished the earlier committal inquiry and substantially restricted the Magistrate's role.
(c) Application
The Court observed that accepting the High Court's view would compel witnesses to depose twice on the same facts, contrary to the legislative scheme that dispensed with elaborate committal proceedings. Since the case involved offences exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, no evidence under S.244 CrPC was required before commitment.
(d) Treatment of Counterarguments
The Court rejected the High Court's reasoning that pre-charge evidence was necessary to enable meaningful scrutiny before commitment. It held that such an approach was inconsistent with the statutory framework and the settled law restricting the Magistrate's jurisdiction at the committal stage.
Held
The appeal was allowed. The High Court's remand order was set aside, and the criminal revisions concerning discharge and framing of charges were restored to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. The High Court was requested to dispose of both revisions within nine months.
Ratio
In a complaint case involving offences exclusively triable by the Court of Session, a Magistrate is not required to record prosecution evidence under S.244 CrPC before committing the case under S.209 CrPC, as the Magistrate's role at the committal stage is purely limited and administrative.
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 660
Decided on: 1 July 2026
Case Title: Neeraj Gupta v. Pardeep Kumar Bansal & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.