Suresh Chaudhary vs State of M.P.

B.M. Gupta, J.

The only point involved in this petition is whether after committing of a case to the Court of Sessions u/s 209 of Cr. P.C., a Sessions Judge can take cognizance u/s 193 of Cr. P.C. against those persons who have not been arrayed as accused by the police in the challan.

Section 193 goes as under-

Cognizance of offences by Courts of Sessions.-

Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code.

It appears that unless a case is committed by a Magistrate to the Court of Sessions, a Sessions Judge can not take cognizance of any offence except as otherwise expressly provided by Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force. No other provision of Code of Criminal Procedure or of any other law has been mentioned. Admittedly, the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. Although the Petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused in the case by the police while filing challan yet the bar of committing of a case has now been gone away. After committing of a case, on the basis of the documents and evidence collected and enclosed by the investigating agency along with the challan, if a sessions judge comes to the conclusion that a person who has not been arrayed as an accused is also to be tried alongwith the persons who have been arrayed as accused in the challan, he can take cognizance against such other persons also. There appears no bar after committing of a case. The observation of the apex court in the case of Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar 1993 S.C.C(Cri) 470 endorsed by the apex court in the case of Nisar v. State of U.P. 1995 SCC (Cri) 306 can be perused in support of the aforementioned point.

As cited by Shri Pateria on behalf of the Petitioner although a different view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and by this Court in Smt. Shobha and Anr. v. State of M.P., criminal revision No. 654/05. Yet the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Singh has been referred to a larger bench by a three judges bench of the Apex Court in the case of Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 2006 (1) SCC 273. The aforesaid bench of three judges of the Apex Court as also observed that the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Kishun Singh (supra) is correct. In view of the aforementioned views taken by the Apex Court in the case of Kishun Singh, Nisar and another and Dharam Pal (supra) the view taken by another Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shobha (supra) also does not appear correct.

In view of the aforesaid abservation the impugned order dt.7.6.06 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, Distt. Bhind in Sessions No. 240/ 2005 by which the cognizance u/s 193 Code of Criminal Procedure has been taken against the Petitioner, does not appear erroneous. There appears no abuse of the process of the Court.

Consequently, the petition is dismissed.