Neeraj Gupta v. Pardeep Kumar Bansal and Others – Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 776 of 2020 – 2026 INSC 660 – 01 July 2026 – Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Appellant and impugned order challenged
Appellant Neeraj Gupta, complainant, challenged common judgment and order dated 2nd September 2019 passed in CRR-993-2011 (O&M) by High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby learned Single Judge remanded matter to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh to comply with provisions of Section 244 CrPC.
Factual matrix
Case arose after altercation between complainant’s family and respondents on 12 April 2007 following which complainant’s father died. As police did not register FIR, complainant approached Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC resulting in proceedings under Section 200 CrPC. After recording pre-summoning evidence, Magistrate summoned accused and committed matter involving offence under Section 302 IPC to Court of Session.
Lower courts verdicts
Trial Court / Magistrate: Recorded pre-summoning evidence under Section 200 CrPC, summoned accused and committed case to Court of Session under Section 209 CrPC for offence under Section 302 IPC. High Court: In revision, held pre-charge evidence under Section 244 CrPC mandatory before committal and remanded matter to Magistrate for compliance.
Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent
Appellant: Requirement of Section 244 CrPC before committal under Section 209 CrPC is contrary to scheme of CrPC, Section 244 applies only to warrant cases triable by Magistrates, Magistrate’s role at committal is narrow, compelling double deposition is impermissible. Respondent / High Court view: Pre-charge evidence under Section 244 CrPC is mandatory safeguard before committing Sessions-triable case arising from complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
Supreme Court rejected High Court approach as inconsistent with statutory design. Held Section 244 applies only to warrant cases triable by Magistrates and instituted otherwise than on police report, has no application where offence exclusively triable by Court of Session. In such cases Section 209 alone governs committal after basic statutory formalities. Magistrate cannot test evidence, evaluate prosecution case or conduct pre-charge inquiry. 1973 Code deliberately abolished elaborate committal inquiry under 1898 Code to prevent delay and duplication, requiring witnesses to depose before both Magistrate and Sessions Court would revive very mischief legislature intended to remove.
Directions issued
High Court’s remand order dated 2 September 2019 set aside as legally untenable. Matter restored for fresh decision by High Court in accordance with law as clarified. No direction to police as FIR stage already over.
Who is affected and what changes
Impacts complainants, accused and Magistrates in complaint cases where offence exclusively triable by Sessions Court under Section 209 CrPC. Practically, Magistrates must not record Section 244 evidence before committal, must only ensure statutory compliance. Prevents duplication of testimony, accelerates Sessions trials and restores narrow inspection role of Magistrate at committal stage.
Judgments cited/quoted/used inside the document
As per the limited head note / brief facts / ratio you provided, no other Supreme Court judgments are expressly cited by name with citation. The document itself is the source of law on Section 209 vs Section 244 dichotomy.
Important paragraphs
Hon’ble High Court’s order was that there is a mandatory recording of pre-charge evidence under section 244 CrPC before committing the case to the Sessions Court
4. The reasoning adopted by the High Court is that Section 244 CrPC requires that a Magistrate hear all prosecution evidence irrespective of whether or not the offence with which the evidence is concerned is triable by the Magistrate or not. We may reproduce the part thereof:
‘Once the Legislature has provided a specific procedure for recording the pre-charge evidence before framing of charges in a Magisterial trial, it does not appear to prudence that the said requirement was not essential for an offence triable by the Sessions Court, if the case is based upon the complaint. It may be again added here that if the offence is serious, there has to be sufficient material in the shape of some evidence which is to be examined by the Magistrate before passing the Committal Order, the same has to be other than the pre-summoning evidence. Time and again, this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the Magistrate while passing the Committal Order is not to act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but is supposed to examine the material carefully to arrive at such a conclusion. In cases based upon the police report, the entire evidence collected by the police after investigation is contained in Final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. whereupon an opinion is formed by the Magistrate for Commitment and likewise in the other cases, the Court has to examine pre-charge evidence before passing the Committal Order.’
Question of law
6. The issue, simply put is 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 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
“Hon’ble Supreme Court after quoting provision from Cr.P.C (Section 200 CrPC, Section 209 CrPC, Chapter XIX CrPC) and explaining the principles from its previous judgments Ajoy Kumar Ghose (supra), Harinarayan G. Bajaj supra and Sunil Mehta supra” has held:
9. 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.
Constitution Bench ruled that the duty of the Magistrate at the pre-trial stage in cases exclusively tried by the Sessions Court is to perform administrative work rather than judicial and to commit the case
10. The Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab while dealing with section 319 made following observations which are relevant for our discussion:
’47. .. At this pre-trial stage, the Magistrate is required to perform acts in the nature of administrative work rather than judicial such as ensuring compliance with Sections 207 and 208 CrPC and committing the matter if it is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Therefore, it would be legitimate for us to conclude that the Magistrate at the stage of Sections 207 to 209 CrPC is forbidden, by express provision of Section 319 CrPC, to apply his mind to the merits of the case and determine as to whether any accused needs to be added or subtracted to face trial before the Court of Session.’
11. In Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Ashutosh Ghosh it was held that under CrPC, 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.
Conclusion
Set aside the order of the High court
13. Consequent upon the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court proceeded with an erroneous reading of the law and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is required to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.
14. The main prayer of the appellant before the High Court was that the Court of Sessions that seized the matter had erred in not framing charges against the other two accused persons. In our view, holding that the remand to the Magistrate was incorrect in law, we now ask the High Court to hear the petition of the appellant as well as the one filed by respondent no.2, afresh and decide the same independently. Since the charges against one of the respondents were far framed back in 2011, we request that both the petitions be decided as expeditiously as possible, and not later than nine months. Parties to appear before the High Court on 16th July 2026.”
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 – to trace legislative history of abolition of committal inquiry.
Rattiram v. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 516 – to describe Magistrate’s power as narrow inspection hole.
Acts and Sections involved
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 156(3), Section 200, Section 202, Section 209, Section 244
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – Committal inquiry provisions [referred for historical contrast]
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302
