Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Karan Sunil Ingole, challenged the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.4, Baramati, committing RCC No.247 of 2011 to the Court of Sessions, and the confirmation of that order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, in Criminal Revision Application No.21 of 2014. The case arose from two cross complaints: CR No.213 of 2010 filed by respondent No.2 (Sagar Sanjay Londhe) for offences under Sections 326, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 IPC, and CR No.214 of 2010 filed by Mayur Jagannath Deshkhaire for offences under Sections 307, 324, 325, 143, 145, 149 IPC read with Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act. After investigation, charge-sheets were filed. The case under CR No.214 of 2010, involving offences exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, was committed to the Sessions Court. The complainant in CR No.213 of 2010 then moved an application to commit that case also to the Sessions Court, arguing that both cases arose from the same transaction and should be tried together as counter cases. The Magistrate allowed the application, and the revision against that order was dismissed. The petitioner, an accused in CR No.213 of 2010, challenged these orders. The High Court examined the facts and found that the two incidents occurred at different times (16:45 hrs and 17:45 hrs), different places (outside and inside a theater), and involved different accused. Therefore, they were not part of the same transaction. The Court held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to commit the case under Section 323 CrPC without having started any inquiry or trial, and that the offences in CR No.213 of 2010 were not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The High Court quashed the committal order and the revisional order, directing the Magistrate to proceed with the trial of RCC No.247 of 2011 in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Committal of Case - Section 323 CrPC - Power to Commit - The Magistrate can commit a case to the Court of Sessions only after starting inquiry or trial and if it appears that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Sessions Court. In the present case, the Magistrate committed RCC No.247 of 2011 (arising from CR No.213 of 2010) to the Sessions Court without any inquiry or trial having commenced, and the offences were not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The High Court held that such committal was without jurisdiction and contrary to Section 323 CrPC. (Paras 2-8)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Counter Cases - Joint Trial - Requirement of Same Transaction - For two cases to be tried jointly as counter cases, they must arise out of the same transaction. Here, the incidents in CR No.213 of 2010 and CR No.214 of 2010 occurred at different times (16:45 hrs vs 17:45 hrs), different places (outside vs inside theater), and involved different accused. Hence, they were not part of the same transaction and could not be committed for joint trial. (Paras 3-8)
C) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Maintainability - The order of committal under Section 323 CrPC is an interlocutory order and revision under Section 397 CrPC is not maintainable. However, the High Court entertained the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to correct a patent illegality. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Magistrate can commit a case not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions to the Sessions Court under Section 323 CrPC without having started any inquiry or trial, merely because it is a counter case to another case already committed.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.4, Baramati, dated 20th February 2014, committing RCC No.247 of 2011 to the Court of Sessions, and also quashed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, dated 30th June 2014, in Criminal Revision Application No.21 of 2014. The Magistrate was directed to proceed with the trial of RCC No.247 of 2011 in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Committal under Section 323 CrPC requires commencement of inquiry or trial
- Counter cases must arise from same transaction for joint trial
- Section 323 CrPC cannot be invoked for cases not exclusively triable by Sessions Court
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (02) 77
Criminal Writ Petition No.3409 of 2014
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
Mr. Suraj Nangre a/w. Mr. Sayaji Nangre for Petitioner, Mrs. A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1, Mr. Rahul Kate for Respondent No.2
The State of Maharashtra and Sagar Sanjay Londhe
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition challenging the order of committal of a case to the Sessions Court under Section 323 CrPC.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.4, Baramati, committing RCC No.247 of 2011 to the Court of Sessions, and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, confirming the same in Criminal Revision Application No.21 of 2014.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the Magistrate committed the case without jurisdiction as the offences were not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court and no inquiry or trial had commenced.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.4, Baramati, allowed the application for committal of RCC No.247 of 2011 to the Sessions Court. The Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, dismissed Criminal Revision Application No.21 of 2014, confirming the committal order.
Issues
Whether the Magistrate could commit a case not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court under Section 323 CrPC without having started any inquiry or trial?
Whether the two cases (CR No.213 of 2010 and CR No.214 of 2010) arose out of the same transaction so as to be tried jointly as counter cases?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the incidents in the two cases occurred at different times (16:45 hrs vs 17:45 hrs), different places (outside vs inside theater), and involved different accused, hence not part of same transaction. The Magistrate had no jurisdiction to commit under Section 323 CrPC without starting inquiry or trial.
Respondent No.2 supported the orders, contending that the cases were counter cases arising from the same transaction and required joint trial by the Sessions Court.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 323 CrPC, a Magistrate can commit a case to the Court of Sessions only after starting inquiry or trial and if it appears that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Sessions Court. The power cannot be exercised for a case not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, especially when no inquiry or trial has commenced. Further, for two cases to be tried jointly as counter cases, they must arise out of the same transaction; differences in time, place, and accused indicate separate transactions.
Judgment Excerpts
The Magistrate can commit the case to the Court of Sessions only after starting inquiry or trial and if it appears to him that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions.
In the present case, admittedly, the Magistrate has not started any inquiry or trial. Moreover, the offences in the case are not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
The incidents in both the cases are at different times, different places and the accused are also different. Hence, they cannot be said to be arising out of the same transaction.
Procedural History
On complaint of Respondent No.2, CR No.213 of 2010 was registered for offences under Sections 326, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 IPC. On complaint of Mayur Deshkhaire, CR No.214 of 2010 was registered for offences under Sections 307, 324, 325, 143, 145, 149 IPC r/w Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act. Charge-sheets were filed in both cases. CR No.214 of 2010 was committed to Sessions Court as it involved exclusively triable offences. The complainant in CR No.213 of 2010 applied for committal of that case also to Sessions Court. The Magistrate allowed the application on 20th February 2014. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No.21 of 2014, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 30th June 2014. The petitioner then filed the present Criminal Writ Petition No.3409 of 2014 before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 323, 397
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 326, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 325, 145
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: 3(1)(10)
