Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v. State of U.P. 2025 INSC 930 - S. 193 CrPC - Summoning Power Of Sessions Court
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 173, 193, 319 - The Court of Session has power under Section 193 CrPC to summon a person as accused to stand trial, even if he has not been charge-sheeted by the police and whose complexity in the crime appears in the evidence available on record (Para)- Both under Sections 209 and 193 respectively of the Code 1973 commitment is of, the “case” and not of the “accused”- Even though the case is committed yet cognizance taken is of the offence and not the offender. Once the case in respect of the offence qua the accused, who are before the Court, is committed and cognizance is taken, the embargo under Section 193 regarding taking cognizance only by committal goes. Summoning additional persons will then be regarded as incidental to the cognizance already taken on committal and as, a part, of, the normal process that follows. A fresh committal of such person is not necessary - Once the Court takes cognizance of the offence (not of the offender), it becomes the Court's duty to find out the real offenders and if it comes to the conclusion that besides the persons put up for trial by the police some others are also involved in the commission of the crime, it is the Court's duty to summon them to stand trial along with those already named, since summoning them would only be part of the process of taking cognizance. (Para 103) What the law under section 193 seeks to visualize and provide for now is that the whole of the incident constituting the offence is to be taken cognizance of by the Court of Session on commitment and not that every individual offender must be so committed or that in case it is not so done then the Court of Session would be powerless to proceed against persons regarding whom it may be fully convinced at the very threshold of the trial that they are prima facie guilty of the crime as well. (Para 82) [SC rejected the contention that the petitioner could have been summoned as an accused by Court of Sessions only during the course of trial under the provisions of Section 319 CrPC]
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 190,193 - A Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of an offence even if the same is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. (Para 56)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 190 - Cognizance is, at its heart, always an act of the court. It entails not merely the receipt of information or the mechanical act of acknowledgement of a particular offence by a judicial authority, but a conscious application of mind by it, to the information disclosed or received, as the case may be, and the subjective element of its satisfaction that i) an offence has indeed occurred and ii) the circumstances necessitate setting into motion criminal proceedings in respect of the said offence, or at the very least take steps for ascertaining if there is any basis for initiating such proceedings. Cognizance is attended by the assumption of jurisdiction for proceeding further. (Para 21) ‘Taking cognizance’ does not involve any formal action of any kind. It occurs as soon as a judicial authority applies its mind to the suspected commission of an offence (Para 23) Where a complaint is received disclosing facts which constitute an offence, cognizance is taken after the Magistrate has applied his mind to the complaint and has proceeded under Section 200 and the subsequent provisions of Chapter XV, whereupon such complaint is neither returned in terms of Section 201 nor dismissed under Section 203, and instead there is issuance of process by the Magistrate in terms of Section 204 and other provisions of Chapter XVI, at which stage it is understood that cognizance of such offence has been taken and proceedings under the Code stand initiated. On the other hand, where a police report is received, proceedings are said to be initiated i.e., cognizance is affirmatively said to be taken after the Magistrate has applied its mind to the contents of the police report, and thereafter he has either issued process to the accused under Section 204 of the Code, on the basis of such report, or where the accused is present before it, either on his own or on being produced by the police, the Magistrate has complied with the requirement envisaged under Section 207 of the Code- While a Magistrate who proceeds under Chapter XV of the Code, may or not be said to have taken cognizance, however, whenever, a Magistrate has proceeded under the provisions of Chapter XVI which deals with “Commencement of Proceedings”, cognizance of offence, without an iota of doubt is understood to have been taken. (Para 45)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 190,193, 227 -Cognizance is always qua an offence and always correlates to initiation of proceedings, whereas, discharge is only qua an accused and concerned with if there is sufficient ground to proceed against such accused - The power to discharge an accused, is nothing more than a safeguard against any mechanical or capricious framing of charges; a pre-requisite for commencement of trials, and thus, correlates only to trials, and has nothing to with the act of “taking cognizance” under the Code. (Para 65-66)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 202, 156(3) - The investigation envisaged in Section 202 is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156(3), as it is only for assisting the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further. (Para 37) The scope of inquiry under Section 202 is limited to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegation made in the complaint – (i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; and (ii) for limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out. There is no gainsaying that discretion vested in the Magistrate has to be judicially exercised. (Para 41)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 193,226-228- Court of Session to only decide whether on the basis of the material on record and the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, there is enough material to either commence a trial or discharge the accused. The framework of the provisions of Section(s) 226, 227 and 228 of the Code, to our minds, do not appear to envisage any power of the Court of Session, to decide whether cognizance of the offence should be taken or not, or the question whether the Magistrate should have taken cognizance or not. For offences which are exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the role that the Court of Session is expected to play in terms of Section(s) 226 to 228, after the case has been committed to it, is not only altogether different from the one that a Magistrate is required to play but also one concerned only with the stage “post-cognizance of offence” in respect of the case committed to it. (Para 70)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 202 - It is imperative on the part of the Magistrate to examine the complainant and his witnesses in a complaint case triable exclusively by Court of Sessions. (Para 42)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319- Section 319(4)(b) enacts a deeming provision in that behalf dispensing with the formal committal order by providing that the person added will be deemed to have been an accused even when cognizance was taken first. Cognizance is of the offence and not the offender and it is the duty of the court to find out who the offenders are. Proceedings could be instituted and cognizance taken also against persons not known at that time. This is clear if the provisions of Section 190 of the Code are read along with the definition of complaint in Section 2(d) which include allegations against unknown person also. Making the unknown persons known is therefore within the powers of the court. When such persons become known by the evidence during inquiry or trial it is not only the right but also the duty of court to bring them on record and proceed against them in an attempt to bring them to justice. There cannot, therefore, be any dispute regarding the powers of court to bring the person under Section 319(1).(Para 103)
Case Info
Case Name and Neutral Citation
- Case Name: Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v. State of U.P. and Anr.
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 930
Coram (Judges)
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan
Judgment Date
- Date: 5 August 2025
Caselaws and Citations Referred
The judgment refers to several important Supreme Court decisions, including:
- Dharam Pal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2014) 3 SCC 306
- Balveer Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 6 SCC 680
- Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 492
- R.R. Chari v. State of U.P., AIR 1951 SC 207
- Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62
- Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 2 SCC 654
- Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan, (2006) 1 SCC 627
- S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram, (2015) 9 SCC 609
- Mona Panwar v. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad, (2011) 3 SCC 496
- Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668
- Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749
- Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan, 1981 SCC (Cri) 438
- Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39
- Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 4 SCC 185
- Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439
- Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736
- Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh, (1992) 2 SCC 213
- Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel, (2012) 10 SCC 517
- Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 363
- Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose, AIR 1963 SC 1430
- Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar, AIR 1960 SC 1113
- Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62
- Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar, (1993) 2 SCC 16
- State of W.B. v. Mohd. Khalid, (1995) 1 SCC 684
- Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar, 1967 Cri LJ 1081 (SC)
- Hareram Satpathy v. Tikaram Agarwala, (1978) 4 SCC 58
- A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, (1984) 2 SCC 500
- Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P. Gwalior, (1987) 1 SCC 5
- Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 16 SCC 30
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
- Section 190 (Cognizance of offences by Magistrates)
- Section 193 (Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session)
- Section 207, 208, 209 (Committal and supply of documents)
- Section 173 (Police report)
- Section 161, 164 (Statements/confessions)
- Section 156(3), 200, 202, 203, 204 (Complaint procedure)
- Section 225, 226, 227, 228 (Trial before Court of Session)
- Section 319 (Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
- Section 302 (Murder)
- Section 376 (Rape)
#SupremeCourt has held that the Court of Session has power under Section 193 CrPC to summon a person as accused to stand trial, even if he has not been charge-sheeted by the police and whose complexity in the crime appears in the evidence available on record. A fresh committal of… https://t.co/WzXCqn5brA pic.twitter.com/eSvWPpZGSn
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) August 5, 2025
Art of overruling a Larger Bench judgment !
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) August 5, 2025
Dharam Pal is a Constitution Bench judgment delivered a decade ago.
Now a Two Judges #SupremeCourt Bench says that impression given in the observation made in Dharam Pal that Magistrate does not take cognizance of offence at the… https://t.co/WzXCqn5brA pic.twitter.com/pcU63rmamV
