Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hariom Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3533
1 CRR-574-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 574 of 2024
HARIOM SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Appearance:
Shri Hradayesh Kumar Shukla - Advocate for applicants.
Shri Nirmal Sharma - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
ORDER
This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated
24/01/2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashoknagar in
Criminal Case No.1014/2017 on an application filed under Section 323 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for short referred as,
'Cr.P.C.') on behalf of the prosecution, whereby the application find favour
and it has been ordered by learned trial Court that offence comes under
Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for short referred as,
'IPC'), which is triable by Court of Sessions, therefore, it be committed to the
Sessions Court.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant / accused submits that initially
after investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 406 and 420 of IPC
and charges were framed accordingly under the aforesaid sections. During
trial except Investigating Officer, all the evidence on behalf of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3533
2 CRR-574-2024
prosecution is complete. He has disclosed his defence and at this stage
without any basis, the order has been passed for committal of the case to the
Court of Sessions without framing charge under Section 409 of IPC against
the applicant / accused. The order is bad in law, therefore, pray for setting
aside the impugned order by allowing this revision.
3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the State has supported the
impugned order referring the provision as contained under Section 323 of
Cr.P.C.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. To appreciate the controversy, the provision under Section 323 of
Cr.P.C. are reproduced as under:-
"323. Procedure when, after commencement of inquiry or trial
Magistrate finds case should be committed.-If, in any inquiry into
an offence or a trial before a Magistrate, it appears to him at any
stage of the proceedings before signing judgment that the case is
one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session, he shall,
commit it to that Court under the provisions hereinbefore
contained and thereupon the provision of Chapter XVIII shall
apply to the commitment so made."
6. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision it is apparent that
discretion has been given to the Magistrate, who is holding an inquiry into an
offence or a trial that any time before signing the judgment if he or she
comes to the conclusion that case involves an offence which is to be tried by
the Court of Sessions, then he shall commit it to the Court of Sessions under
the provisions of Cr.P.C. mentioned hereinbefore.
7. In view of the aforesaid provision, the contentions raised on behalf
of the applicant that after disclosing the defence and near about completion
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3533
3 CRR-574-2024
of prosecution evidence, Magistrate has no authority to commit the case to
the Court of Sessions, has no substance. Sessions Court at the time of
framing charge under the appropriate sections will give reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the applicant, wherein he may oppose that
particular offence as proposed by the Magistrate is not made out and even if
the Sessions Court finds that case is triable by Sessions is made out then
applicant will have each and every opportunity to lead its evidence in
defence for that offence, therefore, this Court is not convinced with the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant /accused.
8. Resultantly, this revision petition being devoid of substance, fails
and is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
rahul
