IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 11 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21880 of 2022 LOKENDRA SINGH SENGAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Atul Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Atul Kumar Sharma - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

Mr. Alok Katare - Advocate for the respondent [R-2].

ORDER The present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Morena, in S.T. No. 214 of 2018. By the impugned order, an application under Section

193 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the present petitioner was summoned.

2. Brief Facts: On 16.05.1996, a report was lodged against co-accused Veer Singh and B.M. Gupta at Crime No. 315/1996, Police Station Kotwali, District Morena. It was alleged that they misappropriated government funds amounting to Rs 1,02,545/-.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in the aforementioned FIR. Furthermore, the charge sheet was filed only against the two aforementioned persons. After being granted bail, said accused persons appeared before the learned Trial Court to face trial.

Although the accused persons approached the higher courts to quash the charge sheet, they were unsuccessful.

4. Subsequently, to delay the proceedings, the accused filed an application under Section 190(1) of the Cr.P.C. to array the present petitioner and others as accused). The petitioner filed a reply to this application. After due consideration, the learned Magistrate rejected the application under Section 190(1) vide order dated 06.06.2018. Thereafter, with the same ulterior motive, co-accused B.M. Gupta filed an application under Section 193 of the Cr.P.C. to array the petitioner as an accused on similar grounds, despite the fact that the earlier application under Section 190(1) had already been dismissed.

5. For ready reference, Section 193 of the Cr.P.C. is reproduced below:

"Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session. 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."

5. Similarly, Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. is reproduced below:

"190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence—

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;

(b) upon a police report of such facts;

(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub- section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.

6. It is further submitted that the core question is whether, under Section 209, the learned Magistrate was required to take cognizance of the offence before committing the case to the Court of Session. It is well-settled that cognizance of an offence can only be taken once. If a Magistrate takes cognizance and subsequently commits the case, the act of taking fresh cognizance and issuing fresh summons is not in accordance with the law.

7. The language of Section 193 clearly indicates that once a case is committed, the Court of Session assumes original jurisdiction. Therefore, the provisions of Section 209 must be understood as the Magistrate playing a ministerial or passive role in committing the case upon finding it triable by the Sessions Court. There can be no "part cognizance" taken by the Magistrate and "part cognizance" taken by the Sessions Judge.

8. It is further submitted that