Bench: Altamas Kabir, CJI, J.S. Khehar, R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Sikri, and D.K. Jain
FACTS
The appellant, Ajay Kumar Parmar, was accused of committing a cognizable offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The police submitted a charge sheet to the Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offence and directed the police to investigate further. The police conducted further investigation and submitted a supplementary charge sheet. However, the Magistrate refused to take cognizance of the supplementary charge sheet, holding that the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
ISSUES
Whether the Magistrate can refuse to take cognizance of a supplementary charge sheet if the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court?
What is the scope of the Magistrate's power under Section 170(2) of the Cr.PC to take cognizance of offences?
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate had erred in refusing to take cognizance of the supplementary charge sheet. The Court observed that the Magistrate's power under Section 170(2) extended to taking cognizance of all offences, including those exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
The Court clarified that the Magistrate's role at the stage of taking cognizance was not to adjudicate the case but to determine whether there was sufficient material to proceed with the trial. The Court stated that the Magistrate could not refuse to take cognizance of an offence merely because it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
Comments