Section 244 CrPC: Supreme Court Says Magistrate Need Not Record All Evidence Before Committing Sessions Case

The Supreme Court has held that Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)[corresponding to Section 267 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)] does not require a magistrate to record all prosecution evidence in a complaint case where the offence is exclusively triable by a sessions court.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which had directed the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, to comply with Section 244, CrPC by recording prosecution evidence before committing the case to the Sessions Court.

Court said such an interpretation was legally incorrect and would unnecessarily require witnesses to depose twice on the same facts.

What Was the Dispute About?

The appeal was filed by Neeraj Gupta against the high court's September 2, 2019 order.

According to the case, on April 12, 2007, a verbal and physical altercation took place between the complainant and his father on one side and the respondents on the other. During the incident, the complainant's father fell unconscious and was declared dead after being taken to hospital.

The complainant first approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, on April 16, 2007, seeking registration of an FIR and submitted another complaint on April 19, 2007.

He subsequently filed a private complaint. The matter was committed to the sessions court in 2010, where charges were framed only against one accused, Narinder Bansal.

Aggrieved by the discharge of the other two accused, Pardeep Kumar Bansal and Gurmail Singh, the complainant filed a criminal revision petition before the high court. It was while deciding this revision that the impugned order came to be passed.

What Does Section 244 CrPC Require?

Section 244(1) CrPC provides that in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, when the accused appears before a magistrate, the magistrate shall hear the prosecution and take such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.

The high court interpreted this provision to mean that the magistrate must record all prosecution evidence even where the offence is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, as in the present case involving, among other offences, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [corresponding to Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)].

Why Did the Supreme Court Disagree?

Setting aside the high court's view, the Supreme Court said such an interpretation finds no support in law.

"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," the Bench observed.

Court relied on Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Ashutosh Ghosh (1979), where it was held that when an offence is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the magistrate is only required to determine whether the case should be committed to the sessions court and need not record evidence for that purpose.

It also referred to Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), in which the magistrate's role at the stage of committal was described as a "narrow inspection hole."

Holding that the high court had misread the law, the Bench said, "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".

What Directions Did the Court Pass?

The Supreme Court noted that the complainant's primary grievance before the high court was that the sessions court had wrongly declined to frame charges against the other two accused.

Since the high court had instead remanded the matter to the magistrate on an incorrect understanding of Section 244 CrPC, the Supreme Court directed the high court to hear afresh both the complainant's revision petition and the connected petition filed by respondent No. 2, and decide them independently.

Noting that charges against one of the accused had already been framed in 2011, Court requested the high court to dispose of both petitions as expeditiously as possible, preferably within nine months.

Case Title: Neeraj Gupta Vs Pradeep Kumar Bansal & Ors

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh

Date of Judgment: July 1, 2026