Sessions Court Committed A Material Illegality By Not Taking Cognizance Against Respondent Nos. 2 And 3: MP HC
1. Overview of Facts & Procedural Posture
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia) considered an application under Section 482 CrPC challenging a decision dated June 24, 2024, by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (S.T. No. 315 of 2023).
The Sessions Court had rejected an application under Section 193 CrPC, and notably did not take cognizance against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Badshah and Rakesh Dandotiya), even though the applicant contended they were involved in the alleged offences. (24Law)
2. High Court’s Key Holding
The High Court categorically held that the Sessions Court committed a material illegality by failing to take cognizance against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. (24Law)
Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The High Court directed the trial court to proceed with cognizance against these individuals under Sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 294 (obscene acts) of the Indian Penal Code—along with any other offences revealed by the facts. (24Law)
3. The Sessions Court’s Error — A “Passive Role”
The High Court observed that the committal court (Magistrate) had merely adopted a passive stance:
The Magistrate dismissed the Section 190 CrPC application, claiming that determining whether charges were made out against the respondents was a matter for the Sessions Court.
As a result, the Magistrate did not actively consider the merits; he simply forwarded the case, which emphasized his limited involvement. (Indian Kanoon, 24Law)
Under Section 193 CrPC, the Sessions Court retained jurisdiction to take cognizance because the Magistrate had not played an “active role.” (24Law, Indian Kanoon)
4. Supporting Authority: Balveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2016)
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Balveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan, which addressed a similar scenario:
There, although the police had not implicated certain individuals in the charge-sheet, the complainant petitioned the Magistrate to summon them under Section 190 CrPC.
The Magistrate examined the plea and actively rejected it after applying his mind thoroughly.
Under those circumstances, the Sessions Court should not have taken cognizance, because the Magistrate had already done so with due consideration. (Indian Kanoon)
Here, the MP High Court noted, by contrast, that no such active consideration took place, meaning the Sessions Court’s cognizance was valid. (Indian Kanoon, 24Law)
5. Summary Framework
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Case | Parimal Singh Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C. No. 31252 of 2024, Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC‑GWL:10853) |
| Lower Court Action | Sessions Court rejected Section 193 CrPC application and did not take cognizance against Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 |
| Magistrate Role | Passive — did not actively evaluate or dismiss merits; deferred to Sessions Court |
| High Court Ruling | Held Sessions Court’s refusal was a material illegality; ordered cognizance under IPC Sections 307 & 294 |
| Legal Precedent | Balveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan — if Magistrate plays active role, Sessions Court shouldn’t take cognizance; but passive role permits Sessions Court to act |
6. Legal Significance
Clarifies Jurisdictional Boundaries:
Under Section 193 CrPC, a Sessions Court can take cognizance if the Magistrate has not made an independent assessment.
Emphasizes Active Decision-Making:
A Magistrate who engages thoughtfully and decides not to deny cognizance effectively extinguishes Sessions Court’s jurisdiction—but that did not happen here.
Encourages Proper Judicial Process:
Both Magistrates and Sessions Judges must respect procedural duties and assess cognizance applications on their merits.
Corrective Relief Available via Section 482 CrPC:
High Courts can intervene where procedural illegality has occurred, especially to uphold justice and prevent impunity.
RELATED Blog
0 comments