The High Court allowed a Criminal Application challenging the Magistrate's order committing a case to the Sessions Court under Section 323 of CrPC. The Applicant was charged under various sections of IPC, including Section 467, and after evidence recording, the Magistrate committed the case citing jurisdiction limits. The Court held that Section 323 of CrPC requires the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or trial and formulate an opinion based on evidence discussion before commitment. Since the impugned order lacked such discussion and reasons, it was quashed. The matter was remanded to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, heard a Criminal Application challenging an order dated 30/4/2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana, in RCC No. 224/2018 -- The Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 323 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on the ground that offence under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is punishable with life imprisonment or up to ten years, exceeding his jurisdiction of seven years -- The Applicant argued that under Section 323 of CrPC, the Magistrate must record skeletal reasons and discuss evidence to formulate an opinion on guilt before commitment -- The Respondent and Intervener opposed, stating Section 323 of CrPC does not require recording of reasons -- The Court held that while Section 323 of CrPC allows commitment if it appears to the Magistrate that the case ought to be tried by Sessions Court, this requires an inquiry or trial and formulation of opinion based on evidence discussion -- The impugned order lacked such discussion, making it unsustainable -- The Court quashed the commitment order and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for fresh consideration -- Major Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) -- Sections Cited: Section 323 of CrPC, Section 325 of CrPC, Section 467 of IPC, Sections 420, 468, 471, 170, 171 read with Section 34 of IPC -- Latin Terms: None -- Keywords: Commitment order, Section 323 CrPC, Evidence discussion, Reasoned order, Magistrate jurisdiction, Sessions trial
The High Court allowed the Application, quashed the impugned order dated 30/4/2024, and remanded the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana, for fresh consideration in accordance with law
Citation: 2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 146
Case Number: Criminal Application (APL) No. 911 of 2024
Date of Decision: 2026-01-29
Case Title: The Issue of Consideration was whether the Magistrate's order committing the case to the Sessions Court under Section 323 of CrPC without discussing evidence or recording reasons was legally valid
Before Judge: Pravin S. Patil J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026:BHC-NAG:1577
Advocate(s): Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, Ms. Garima Jain, Ms. Rohini Pande for Applicant, Ms. D. I. Charlewar for Respondent/State, Mr. S. R. Charpe for Intervener/Informant
Appellant: Mohammed Javed Abdul Wahab
Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Nature of Litigation: Criminal Application challenging the Magistrate's order committing the case to the Sessions Court
Remedy Sought: Applicant seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 30/4/2024 and remand for fresh consideration
Filing Reason: The Magistrate committed the case to Sessions Court under Section 323 of CrPC without discussing evidence or recording reasons, based solely on the punishment under Section 467 of IPC exceeding his jurisdiction
Previous Decisions: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana, passed the impugned order committing the case to Court of Sessions after framing charges and recording evidence, but before recording statement under Section 313 of CrPC
Issues: Whether the Magistrate's order under Section 323 of CrPC committing the case to Sessions Court without discussing evidence or recording reasons is legally valid
Submissions/Arguments: Applicant argued that Section 323 of CrPC requires Magistrate to record skeletal reasons and discuss evidence to formulate opinion on guilt before commitment -- Respondent and Intervener argued that Section 323 of CrPC does not require recording of reasons for commitment
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 323 of CrPC, a Magistrate can commit a case to Sessions Court only after conducting an inquiry or trial and formulating an opinion based on discussion of evidence -- The Magistrate must record reasons for such opinion, and commitment without evidence discussion is unsustainable
Judgment Excerpts: Held that the requirement under Section 323 of the Code is that there should be enquiry into the offence or trial before the Magistrate and after conducting the said trial if it appears to him that prosecution has made out a case that accused can be inflicted maximum punishment or it appears to him that trial shall be tried by the Court of Sessions, then only he can commit the matter to the Sessions Court -- Held that to reach this conclusion, it would be necessary for the learned Magistrate to discuss the evidence to formulate the opinion of guilt -- Held that the said opinion cannot be formulated without discussion of evidence recorded before him -- Held that it is but obvious to discuss and record reason for formulating opinion
Procedural History: Informant lodged complaint registered as Crime No. 682/2018 for offences under IPC -- Chargesheet filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana -- Cognizance taken, charges framed, evidence recorded -- Matter fixed for statement under Section 313 of CrPC -- Magistrate passed impugned order committing case to Sessions Court -- Applicant filed Criminal Application in High Court challenging the order -- High Court heard arguments and delivered judgment quashing the order and remanding the matter
