Sessions Court Can Summon Omitted Accused Under S.193 CrPC Post-Committal, But Cannot Re-Take Cognizance Against Already Charge-Sheeted: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-04-27

Sessions Court Empowered to Summon Omitted Accused Post-Committal Under S.193 CrPC, Rules Rajasthan High Court , But Cannot Re-Take Cognizance Against Already Charge-Sheeted

Jaipur: In a significant ruling clarifying the powers of a Sessions Court regarding summoning of accused persons, the Rajasthan High Court has held that a Sessions Court, upon receiving a committed case from a Magistrate, is empowered to take cognizance and summon accused persons not included in the police charge-sheet under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), based on the material available on record. However, the Court also clarified that the Sessions Court cannot take fresh cognizance against accused persons already subjected to the Magistrate's cognizance for the same incident, even if for different sections, as cognizance can only be taken once.

The single bench of Justice Anoop KumarDhand delivered the judgment while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC, addressing a challenge to an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR filed by the complainant, Ved Prakash Arya , alleging offences against multiple persons. Following investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet only against three individuals (petitioners 1-3). The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance against these three for offences including Sections 323, 341, 325, 308, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and committed the case to the Sessions Court as the offence under Section 308 IPC is triable by a Court of Sessions.

After the case was committed and posted for framing of charges before the Additional Sessions Judge, the complainant filed an application under Section 193 CrPC. This application sought to take cognizance against all accused persons named in the FIR, including the six who were not charge-sheeted by the police (petitioners 4-9), for offences including Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) and other sections, read with Section 149 IPC (unlawful assembly). The Sessions Court allowed this application, took cognizance against all nine petitioners for various offences including S.148, 323, 341, 325, 379, 307 read with Section 149 IPC, and issued arrest warrants against the uncharge-sheeted petitioners (4-9).

Petitioners' Arguments

The petitioners challenged the Sessions Court's order on two main grounds: 1. Taking cognizance again against petitioners 1-3 was impermissible as the Magistrate had already taken cognizance against them, and such an order amounted to reviewing a previous order, barred by Section 362 CrPC. 2. Taking cognizance against petitioners 4-9, who were not charge-sheeted by the police after investigation, was wrong. The Sessions Court should have waited for the stage of Section 319 CrPC (power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence) during the trial when evidence emerges against them, as there was allegedly no material against them at the cognizance stage.

They argued that the Magistrate had applied his mind and taken cognizance, playing an 'active role', and this order had attained finality as it was not challenged. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Balveer Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Respondents' Arguments

The complainant and the State countered that cognizance is taken of the offence, not the offenders. They argued that ample evidence existed against all accused, including petitioners 4-9, in the statements of injured and eyewitnesses and the medical report, but the police wrongly omitted them from the charge-sheet. The Sessions Court, upon committal, assumes original jurisdiction under Section 193 CrPC and can summon accused based on the material on record without waiting for Section 319 CrPC. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments in R.N. Agarwal Vs. R. C. Bansal and Shodan Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan .

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

Justice Dhand meticulously analysed the submissions and relevant legal provisions, particularly Sections 193, 209, and 319 CrPC, in light of various Supreme Court judgments.

The Court first addressed the challenge regarding petitioners 4-9 (uncharge-sheeted accused). The judgment noted the conflicting views in earlier Supreme Court decisions ( Ranjit Singh vs. Kishun Singh ), which were resolved by the Constitutional Bench in Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana . The High Court cited extensively from Dharam Pal and subsequent Supreme Court rulings like Balveer Singh , Rafiusshan vs. State of U.P. & Ors. , and Nahar Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.

These authoritative judgments, as summarized by the High Court, establish that: * The Sessions Judge is entitled to issue summons under Section 193 CrPC upon the case being committed by the Magistrate. * Upon committal under Section 209 CrPC, the Sessions Court assumes original jurisdiction under Section 193 CrPC. * The Sessions Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences of persons not named as offenders but whose complicity is evident from the materials available on record during committal. * The Sessions Judge may summon those persons shown in Column 2 of the police report or whose involvement is prima facie revealed by the case papers sent by the Magistrate, without necessarily waiting for the stage under Section 319 CrPC. * Cognizance of an offence can only be taken once.

Applying these principles, the High Court found that since prima facie evidence existed against petitioners 4-9 based on the material available before the Sessions Court, the decision to take cognizance and summon them under Section 193 CrPC was valid and in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

Next, the Court considered the issue of taking cognizance again against petitioners 1-3. The High Court observed that the Magistrate had already taken cognizance against these three individuals based on the charge-sheet and committed the case. This order had not been challenged by the complainant and had attained finality. Taking cognizance again by the Additional Sessions Judge for certain different offences (specifically S.307 IPC instead of S.308 IPC, along with others) amounted to taking cognizance twice for the same incident against the same set of accused persons at different stages by two different courts.

Referencing the principle reiterated by the Supreme Court that "cognizance of an offence can only be taken once," the High Court held that the subsequent order taking fresh cognizance against petitioners 1-3 by the Additional Sessions Judge was not legally sustainable.

Conclusion

Based on its analysis, the Rajasthan High Court partly allowed the revision petition. * The impugned order dated 11.02.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge was quashed and set aside qua petitioners 1 to 3 . * The impugned order was upheld qua petitioners 4 to 9 , confirming the Sessions Court's power to summon them under Section 193 CrPC.

The Court noted that quashing the subsequent cognizance order against petitioners 1-3 would not prevent the Sessions Court from framing appropriate charges (including potentially under Section 307 IPC, depending on the material) against them at the stage of Sections 227 and 228 CrPC, based on the material on record flowing from the initial cognizance taken by the Magistrate.

Furthermore, recognizing that the High Court had granted interim protection against arrest to petitioners 4-9, the Court modified the arrest warrants issued against them by the Sessions Court into bailable warrants to secure their appearance.

The petition was accordingly disposed of with these modifications to the Sessions Court's order.