The discretionary nature of Section 228(1)(a) Cr.P.C and the absence of a mandatory requirement for the Sessions Court to frame charges before transferring the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This revision petition filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C is directed against the order dated 12.12.2017, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-02 (South East District) Saket Courts, New Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No. 487/2017 where by the Additional Sessions Judge has held that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out againt the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and has sent the case back to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South-east) Saket Courts without framing a charge.

2. The short question which arises for consideration in this revision petition is the consequence of a Sessions Judge taking the view, that the offence is not exclusively triable by him under Section 228(1)(a) Cr.P.C. In such a situation, is the Sessions Judge required to frame charges before transferring the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate ?

3. Shorn of unnecessary details the facts leading to this revision petition are as under:

a) On 02.11.2011, a complaint was submitted to the ACP, Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi stating that at about 12 noon the complainant/petitioner herein went to Dr. Karni Singh shooting range, Tughlakabad to participate in a shooting event. It is stated that when he was going to Lane Number 11 assigned to him by the range officer, the accused Avtar Singh Sethi, Senior Vice President and Baljit Singh Sethi, ex-Secretary prevented him from entering the lane. It is alleged that when he tried to go there they caught hold of his throat which suffocated him and he fell down. It is stated that crowd gathered there and the complainant was rescued. It is stated that the accused Avtar Singh Sethi and the accused Baljit Singh Sethi, sent him out of the range and threatened him that if the complainant comes there again then they will get cases registered against him. The charge sheet further states that on the receipt of the complaint the complainant was medically examined at the AIIMS Trauma centre and the doctor opined that the nature of injury is simple. The chargesheet states that the complainant approached the court by filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration of FIR and as per the direction of the court an ATR was filed 01.05.2012. It is stated in the charge-sheet that the Metropolitan Magistrate-04 (South), Saket Court, New Delhi directed the police station Ambedkar Nagar to lodge an FIR under appropriate sections. Consequently an FIR was registered. After hearing the arguments on point of charge the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-08 (South East), Saket Courts, New Delhi came to the conclusion that in view of the material available on record and specific allegations made in the complaint prima facie offence under Section 307 IPC is made out which is exclusively triable by learned Sessions Court. Accordingly, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The file complete in all respects was sent to the court of Ld. District and Sessions Judge (In-charge South East District).

b) After the case was committed to the Sessions Court on 12.12.2017, the learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties on the question of framing of charge came to the conclusion that the order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is not sustainable in law for the reason that the said order was passed without giving any opportunity to the accused. It was found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 that the order dated 10.10.2017 has been passed against the process of natural justice.

c) Instead of exercising its powers suo moto under Section 397 Cr.P.C. the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 (South East), Saket Courts, New Delhi, to set aside the order dated 10.10.2017, the learned Additional Sessions Judge examined the issue as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out on the facts of the present case and came to the conclusion that a case under Section 307 IPC is not made out.

d) Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions