Back
ALTAMAS KABIR, S. S. NIJJAR, RANJAN GOGOI, M. Y. EQBAL, VIKRAMAJIT SEN
DHARAM PAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent
The statement "Once cognizance is taken, the Magistrate retains full power to proceed against persons not sent up by the police, if from the materials on record their involvement is disclosed" is generally derived from principles related to the powers of a Magistrate after taking cognizance of an offence. It reflects the procedural understanding that, upon initiating proceedings, the Magistrate's authority is not limited solely to the accused persons initially presented by the police but extends to any other individuals whose involvement becomes evident from the case record.
This principle can typically be found in discussions about the scope of judicial authority in criminal proceedings, particularly in the context of the Magistrate's powers under criminal procedure laws. It emphasizes that the Magistrate's jurisdiction continues beyond the initial police report and that the proceedings can be extended to other accused persons as the case develops, based on the evidence on record.
In legal texts or judgments, this principle is often articulated in the context of the Magistrate's powers after taking cognizance, usually in sections discussing the procedure following the filing of a charge or the recording of a complaint. It underscores the importance of the materials on record in enabling the Magistrate to take further action against additional accused persons if their involvement is established.
[Note: Since you requested not to include specific case law references, the explanation is based on general legal principles and procedural norms.]
JUDGMENT
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.
1. This matter was initially directed to be heard by a Bench of Three- Judges in view of the conflict of opinion in the decisions of two Two-Judge Benches, in the cases of Kishori Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others [(2004) 13 SCC 11]; Rajender Prasad Vs. Bashir and Others [(2001) 8 SCC 522] and SWIL Limited Vs. State of Delhi and Others [(2001) 6 SCC 670]. When the matter was taken up for consideration by the Three-Judge Bench on 1st September, 2004, it was brought to the notice of the court that two other decisions had a direct bearing on the question sought to be determined. The first is the case of Kishun Singh Vs. State of Bihar [(1993) 2 SCC 16], and the other is a decision of a Three-Judge Bench in the case of Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(1998) 7 SCC 149]. Ranjit Singh’s case disapproved the observations made in Kishun Singh’s case, which was to the effect that the Session Court has power under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as “the Code”, to take cognizance of an offence and summon other persons whose complicity in the commission of the trial could prima facie be gathered from the mate
No cases in the provided list are **explicitly identified as overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law**. The primary case referenced throughout, **Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2014) 3 SCC 306** (Constitution Bench), is consistently treated as **good law**—followed, affirmed, relied upon, and clarified. It explicitly overrules prior decisions (e.g., Raj Kishore Prasad, referred to in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vs Sujata Chauhan - 2014 Supreme(Online)(SC) 263, Agarwal R. N. v. R. C. Bansal and Others - 2014 Supreme(Online)(SC) 176), but those overruled cases are not listed here with specific identifiers.
**POSITIVE TREATMENT (Followed/Affirmed/Relied Upon/Approved)**
This is the dominant category, comprising nearly all entries. These snippets cite **Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana** (various citations: AIR 2013 SC 3018, (2014) 3 SCC 306) positively, often as a Constitution Bench decision settling law on Magistrate/Sessions Court powers under Cr.P.C. §§190, 193, 209, 319.
**Examples (representative IDs):**
**Hardeep Singh VS State of Punjab - Crimes (2014)**: "this proposition does not seem to have been disturbed by the Constitution Bench in Dharam Pal (CB)" → Affirmed/undisturbed.
**Sansar Chandra VS State of Raj. - 2014 0 Supreme(Raj) 104**: "the Apex Court has held... The Constitutional Bench in Dharam Pal (supra) enlarged the powers" → Followed/held authoritative.
**Venkatrayan VS State by the Sub Inspector of Police, Namakkal District - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 4179**: "Constitution Bench... has set the controversies" → Followed as settling law.
**Genuiya Devi VS State of Jharkhand - 2015 0 Supreme(Jhk) 308**: "in view of the Constitution Bench Judgment... the aforesaid point... is" [implied covered] → Relied upon.
**CHANDRA BABU @ MOSES VS STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE - 2015 5 Supreme 358**: "the Constitution Bench, while accepting the view in Kishun Singh" → Approved/accepting prior view.
**HARI KISHAN VS STATE OF U. P. - 2017 0 Supreme(All) 2555**: "Constitutional Bench has decided a reference" → Relied upon.
Many others (e.g., Rabindra Nath Dubey VS State of Jharkhand - 2014 0 Supreme(Jhk) 716, Shankar Kumar Thakurta VS State of M. P. - Crimes (2014), R. N. Agarwal VS R. C. Bansal - 2014 7 Supreme 643, Awadhesh Thakur VS State of Jharkhand - 2015 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1359, etc.) use phrases like "relied upon," "held as under," "affirmed," "approved," "followed," "clarified the powers," "set at rest," "land mark case."
**NEUTRAL/DISTINGUISHED (Specific Contexts)**
Few cases show limited distinction or contextual application without negative treatment.
**Vijay Saraswat, S/o Girdhari Saraswat VS Richa Ojha Saraswat, W/o Gourav Saraswat - 2018 0 Supreme(Chh) 477**: "The Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate that the facts of Dharam Pal case (supra) are entirely different" → Distinguished on facts, but not criticized/overruled.
**Ashok Kumar Yadav VS State of Haryana - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1315**: "The judgment in Dharam Pal’s case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, does" [sentence cuts off, but implies contextual limit] → Potentially distinguished, but still cited.
**Raj Kishore Prasad VS State Of Bihar - 1996 4 Supreme 87, SWIL VS State of NCT of Delhi - 2001 6 Supreme 85, Rajinder Prasad VS Bashir - 2001 7 Supreme 88, Kishori Singh VS State Of Bihar - 2000 7 Supreme 182, Abhinandan Jha: Roopchand Lal VS Dinesh Mishra: State Of Bihar - 1967 0 Supreme(SC) 141, Kishun Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 28, Ranjit Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1998 7 Supreme 447**: These appear as pre-Dharam Pal propositions (e.g., "Magistrate cannot issue process," "Sessions Court cannot add... prior to evidence") that **Dharam Pal overrules** (per positive citations like Agarwal R. N. v. R. C. Bansal and Others - 2014 Supreme(Online)(SC) 176: "overruled the previous judgment"; Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vs Sujata Chauhan - 2014 Supreme(Online)(SC) 263: "overruled the decision rendered in Raj Kishore"). However, they are not explicitly named as bad law here; treatment inferred as superseded by Dharam Pal.
**CLARIFIED/QUESTIONED (No Negative Outcome)**
**Mama @ Bidyut Prava Khuntia VS State of Orissa - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 669**: "State of Punjab (supra) was doubted... in Dharam Pal" → Earlier case doubted, but resolved positively by Dharam Pal (Constitution Bench). Dharam Pal itself "continues to hold the field."
**Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vs Sujata Chauhan - 2014 Supreme(Online)(SC) 263, Agarwal R. N. v. R. C. Bansal and Others - 2014 Supreme(Online)(SC) 176**: Dharam Pal "overruled" prior judgments (not listed here), but Dharam Pal is good law.
**None identified.** All snippets have clear positive or neutral treatment indicators. Ambiguous phrases (e.g., incomplete sentences like in Ashok Kumar Yadav VS State of Haryana - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1315) still contextually affirm reliance on Dharam Pal without negative signals. Pre-Dharam Pal snippets (Raj Kishore Prasad VS State Of Bihar - 1996 4 Supreme 87 etc.) align with propositions known to be overruled by Dharam Pal (per explicit list references), but lack direct "overruled" labels here, so categorized neutrally as superseded rather than uncertain.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
