The Delhi High Court on May 15, 2019, in the case of The State (NCT of Delhi) v. Suresh Gautam & Ors, has observed that a case can be remitted to a Magistrate for recording pre-charge evidence even if Sessions Court has already framed charges.
A single judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was hearing a revision petition filed by the State seeking quashing of an order passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application filed by the State under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to remit the matter to the Court of MM for recording pre charge evidence.
In this case, a complaint was filed by respondent No.3 alleging that respondent Nos.1 & 2 had committed an offence under Sections 307/323/324/452/506/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After recording of the pre summoning evidence, respondent Nos.1 & 2 were directed to be summoned by order dated 12.08.2013. By order dated 12.11.2013 case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On 08.01.2014 charges was framed against respondent Nos.1 & 2 under Section 454/34 IPC and Section 307/34 IPC.
Subsequently, an application was filed by the prosecution contending that after the respondent Nos.1 & 2 were summoned no pre charge evidence was recorded and as such it was prayed that the mater be remitted to the Court of the MM for recording pre charge evidence. However, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application leading the State to move the Delhi High Court.
Hearing the case, the High Court observed that “In the present case, by impugned order, the Sessions Court while rejecting the application filed by the State, has in fact noticed that no pre charge evidence has been recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate before committing the case to sessions. The only reason given for dismissal of the application is that since charges have already been framed by the predecessor court, the successor Court would have no power to review the order.”
Therefore, the High Court held that “Clearly the reasoning given by the Sessions Court is not sustainable and the manner in which the charge has been framed by the MM prior to committal is contrary to the law laid down by the Court in Sunil Mehta (Supra). No pre-charge evidence has been recorded in this case and reliance has been placed solely on the presummoning evidence for the purposes of framing of charge.”
Further, referring to earlier judgments, the High Court agreed with the State and directed “The matter is remitted to the Court of MM and shall be commenced from the stage of recording of pre charge evidence. The matter shall be placed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts on 28.05.2019 for assignment to the concerned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. Parties shall appear before the Court of CMM on the said date.”
Read the judgment below.
.webp)
