Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Neeraj Gupta, filed a criminal complaint against the respondents, Pardeep Kumar Bansal and others, alleging that on 12th April 2007, a verbal and physical altercation occurred between the appellant and his father on one side and the respondents on the other. During the altercation, the appellant's father fell down, lost consciousness, and was declared dead upon being taken to the hospital. Initially, no FIR was registered. The appellant made complaints to the Senior Superintendent of Police on 16th and 19th April 2007. On 5th February 2008, he sought directions under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, which was accepted on 19th February 2008, and proceedings under Section 200 CrPC were initiated. Evidence was recorded on 21st April 2008 and 10th January 2009, and summoning orders were issued on 8th December 2009. The case was committed to the Sessions Court on 3rd May 2010. The respondents sought quashing of the complaint before the High Court, but during the pendency of that petition, the Sessions Court framed charges under Section 240 CrPC on 5th April 2011, but only against respondent no. 2, Narinder Bansal, discharging respondents no. 1 and 3. The appellant filed a criminal revision (CRR-993-2011) against the discharge. The High Court, by its judgment dated 2nd September 2019, remanded the matter to the Judicial Magistrate First Class for compliance with Section 244 CrPC, holding that the case was a warrant case instituted on a private complaint and that the Magistrate should have recorded pre-charge evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing the case. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred in remanding the matter. The Court clarified that Section 244 CrPC applies only to warrant cases instituted on a private complaint before a Magistrate, not to cases where the Magistrate acted under Section 156(3) CrPC and the case was committed to Sessions Court. In such cases, the Sessions Court frames charges under Section 240 CrPC after considering the police report and documents. The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC by remanding the matter after charges were already framed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Sessions Court's order framing charges against respondent no. 2, directing the Sessions Court to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Warrant Cases - Section 244 CrPC - Applicability - Section 244 CrPC applies only to warrant cases instituted on a private complaint before a Magistrate, not to cases committed to Sessions Court after investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC - The High Court erred in remanding the matter for pre-charge evidence under Section 244 CrPC after charges were framed under Section 240 CrPC (Paras 5-7). B) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Charges - Section 240 CrPC - Procedure - In a case committed to Sessions Court after investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Sessions Court must frame charges under Section 240 CrPC after considering the police report and documents, not under Section 244 CrPC - The High Court's order remanding the matter was without jurisdiction (Paras 5-7). C) Criminal Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 CrPC - Scope - The High Court's revisional power under Section 397 CrPC is limited to correcting patent errors of law or fact resulting in manifest injustice - The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding the matter for compliance with Section 244 CrPC after charges were already framed (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter to the Magistrate for compliance with Section 244 CrPC after the Sessions Court had already framed charges under Section 240 CrPC, and whether the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 2nd September 2019, and restored the Sessions Court's order framing charges against respondent no. 2. The Sessions Court was directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Law Points
- Section 244 CrPC applies only to warrant cases instituted on a private complaint
- not to cases committed after investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC
- Section 240 CrPC governs framing of charges in such cases
- High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is limited to correcting patent errors of law or fact resulting in manifest injustice
