DHARAM PAL & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 13 S.C.R. 1052 · Decided: 18-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 13 S.C.R. 1052 
DHARAM PAL & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2003) 
JULY 18, 2013 
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, 
RANJAN GOGOi, M.Y. EQBAL AND 
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
C 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
ss. 190, 204 and 209 ~Power of Magistrate - To issue 
summons to those not named as accused in Police Report 
- Held: The Magistrate has power to disagree with the Police 
0 
Report u/s. 173(3) and proceed against the accused persons 
de hors- the J?olice Report -
Thus, the Magistrate can 
summon the persons n.srned in Column 2 of the Police 
Report, and on being satisfied that case is made out against 
them, can try the case himself or commit the same to 
E Sessions Court as the case may be. 
s. 193 and 319 - Power of Sessions Court -
To· take 
cognizance of offence of persons not named as accused in 
Charge-sheet - Held: After committal of case, Sessions Court 
has jurisdiction to take cognizance as a Court of original 
F jurisdiction, of the offences of the persons who have not been 
named as offenders, but whose complicity in the case is 
evident from the materials available on record - Hence, can 
summon the persons shown in Column 2 of Police Report -
Before proceeding against such persons, Sessions Court 
G does not need to waittill the stage u/s. 319 is reached. 
H 
The matter was referred by Three-Judge Bench of 
this.court. The following questions were before the Court 
for consi.deration: 
1052 
-r ' 
"j. 
.. r 
DHARAM PAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 
1053 
(i) Does the Committing Magistrate have any othey 
A 
role to play after committing the case to the Court of 
Session on finding from the police report that the 
case was triable by the Court of Session? 
(ii) If the Magistrate disagrees with the police report 
and is convinced that a case had also been made 
out for trial against the persons who had been placed 
B 
in column 2 of the report, does he have the 
jurisdiction to issue summons against them also in 
or9er to include their names, to stand trial in 
C 
connection with the case made out in the police 
report? 
(iii) Having decided to issue summons against the 
Appellants, was the Magistrate required to follow the 
procedure of a complaint case and to take evidence .0 
before committing them to the Court of Session to 
stand trial or whether he was justified in issuing 
summons against them without following such 
procedure? 
E 
·(iv) Can the Session Judge issue summons under 
Section 193 Cr.P.C. as a Court of original 
jurisdiction? 
(v) Upon the case being committed to the Court of 
Session, could the Session Judge issue summons 
F 
s.eparately under Section 193 of the Code or would 
he have to wait till the stage under Section 319 of 
the Code was reached in order to take recourse 
thereto? 
G 
(vi) Was **Ranjit Singh's case which set aside the 
decision in *Kishun Singh's case rightly decided or 
not? 
Deciding the questions and remitting the matter to 
Three-Judge Bench, the Court 
H 
' 
~
1054 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 13 S.G.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1., It is not correct to say that on receipt of a 
" 
police report seeing that the case was triable by Court 
of Session, the Magistrate had no other function, but to 
commit the case for trial to the Court of Session, which 
could only resort to Section 319 Cr.P.C. to array any other 
B person as accused in the trial. It cannot be said that there 
could be no intermediary stage between taking of 
cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) and Section 204 
• 
Cr.P.C. issuing summons to the accused. The effect of 
¥ 
such an interpretation would lead to a situation where 
c neither the committing Magistrate would have any control 
over the persons named in column 2 of the police report 
nor the Session Judge, till the Section 319 stage was 
reached in the trial. Furthermore, in the event, the 
Session Judge ultimately found material against the 
D persons named in column 2 of the police report, the trial 
would have to be commenced de novo against such 
-"' .
persons whi_ch would not only lead to duplication of the 
r 
trial, but also prolong the same. [Para 22] [1070-A-D] 
1.2. The view expressed in *Kishun Singh's case, is 
E more acceptable, since the- Magistrate has ample powers 
to disagree with the Final Report that may be filed by the 
'. 
police authorities under Section 173(3) Cr.P.C. and to 
proceed against the accused persons dehors the police 
~ .. 
report, which power the Session Court does not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.