Telangana High Court

Singireddy Sathemma vs The State Of Telangana on 29 August, 2025

Author: N.Tukaramji

Bench: N.Tukaramji

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

             CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 377 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 & 401 of

the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') with a

prayer to set aside the docket order dated 15.06.2022 in S.R.No. 5 of

2022 in S.C.No. 265 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal District

and Sessions Judge, Bhupalpally.

2. I have heard Mr. Vivekananda Bommineni and Mr.L.Harish,

learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao

Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing

respondent No.1-State.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that, the revision petitioner,

who is the de facto complainant, lodged a first information statement

before the Tekumatla Police Station, which was registered as FIR No.

71 of 2021. Upon completion of investigation, the investigating agency

filed a charge-sheet only against Accused Nos. 1 and 5, while deleting

the names of the other accused. Consequently, the learned Magistrate

committed the matter to the Sessions Division, where it was numbered

as S.C. No. 434 of 2022 and made over to the file of the learned 2 NTR,J

Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhupalpally. The

case thereafter proceeded to the stage of trial.

At that stage, the revision petitioner raised a grievance that the

names of Accused/Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 had been deleted without

affording her an opportunity of being heard. She accordingly filed a

protest petition/private complaint before the learned Principal Sessions

Judge, Bhupalpally. However, by endorsement dated 14.06.2022, the

learned Principal Sessions Judge returned the protest petition/private

complaint with a direction to file the same before the proper

jurisdictional Court.

Pursuant thereto, the revision petitioner presented a complaint

under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the

learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal. By order

dated 25.05.2022, the learned Magistrate returned the complaint,

endorsing that since Crime No. 71 of 2021 of Tekumatla Police Station

had already been taken on file as P.R.C. No. 28 of 2021 and

committed to the Sessions Court for trial, the present petition was not

maintainable before that Court. Aggrieved by the said return

order/endorsement on the protest petition/private complaint, the

present revision has been preferred.

3 NTR,J

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the

revision petitioner, being the de facto complainant, was neither

informed nor examined during the course of investigation or at the time

of filing of the charge-sheet. It is further urged that the names of

certain accused were deleted from the charge-sheet without issuance

of notice or affording an opportunity of hearing. In addition, both the

protest petition filed before the Sessions Court and the complaint filed

before the jurisdictional Magistrate were returned without providing the

petitioner any meaningful opportunity of being heard or guidance as to

the proper legal remedy available.

Learned counsel submits that once the case was committed to

the Sessions Court, in terms of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure the Sessions Court assumed original jurisdiction.

Consequently, it was the Sessions Court alone that was competent to

take cognizance of the matter. In that view, the Sessions Court ought

to have entertained the protest petition and passed appropriate orders

on its merits. The relegation of the petitioner by both Courts on the

ground of jurisdiction has effectively left the petitioner remediless.

It is further emphasized that since no notice was served upon

the petitioner prior to committal, the principles of natural justice and the

right to a fair opportunity to contest the alleged lapses in investigation

have been violated. On this basis, learned counsel prays for a direction 4 NTR,J

to the Courts below to entertain and adjudicate the protest

petition/complaint and thereafter proceed with the trial of the Sessions

Case on its merits.

In support of these submissions, reliance is placed on the

decisions of Balveer Singh and another v. State of Rajasthan [(2016) 6

SCC 680] and Dharam Pal and others v. State of Haryana and another

[(2014) 3 SCC 306].

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

submits that since the matter had already been committed, the

endorsement of the Magistrate declining jurisdiction was legally

justified. After committal, the power to take cognizance rests solely

with the Sessions Court. Thus, the Sessions Court ought to have

entertained the protest petition and considered it on its merits. The

Prosecutor, however, leaves the matter to consider the pleadings and

prays for an appropriate order.

6. I have perused the materials on record.

7. The factual background and the submissions advanced by the

revision petitioner/de facto complainant give rise to the central

question for determination: after committal of the case by the

Magistrate to the Sessions Division, which Court has jurisdiction 5 NTR,J

to entertain a protest petition or private complaint relating to

deletion of certain accused and issues arising in the Sessions

Case?

8. The factual aspects are not in dispute. Even leaving aside the

question of whether notice was served on the revision petitioner prior

to committal in relation to the deletion of certain accused, the critical

issue that arises is the jurisdictional competence to entertain a private

complaint filed after committal particularly where such complaint

challenges the deletion of accused persons during investigation.

According to the revision petitioner, Section 193 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") vests such jurisdiction in the

Court of Session.

9. Section 193 Cr.P.C. provides:

"193. 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."

10. This provision defines the limits of jurisdiction of the Court of

Session. It mandates that a Court of Session can assume original

jurisdiction only after a case has been formally committed to it by a

Magistrate. The scheme reflects the importance of a structured 6 NTR,J

process in which the Magistrate plays an indispensable role in

determining whether sufficient grounds exist for committal to the Court

of Session.

The expression "except as otherwise expressly provided" refers

to exceptions under special enactments, such as the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where the

Sessions Court may directly take cognizance.

Once a Magistrate issues an order of committal, transferring the

case to the Court of Session along with the charge-sheet, evidence,

and connected documents, the Magistrate becomes functus officio.

Upon committal, the Sessions Court assumes jurisdiction as a Court of

original jurisdiction. In that capacity, it may re-evaluate charges,

examine additional evidence, and proceed with the trial. The only

limitation is that the Sessions Court's jurisdiction is confined to the

materials committed or received by the Magistrate, which have already

undergone preliminary scrutiny. Thus, the framework under Section

193 CrPC ensures an orderly and efficient administration of criminal

justice.

11. The question, therefore, is whether once the Sessions Court

has assumed original jurisdiction upon committal; it can also exercise 7 NTR,J

authority to entertain a protest petition or private complaint functions

typically associated with magisterial jurisdiction.

12. The legal position on this issue is no longer res integra. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Dharam Pal and Others v. State of Haryana

[(2014) 3 SCC 306], has conclusively clarified the scope of jurisdiction.

In that case, certain accused persons named in the FIR were not

included in the charge-sheet and were relegated to Column 2 of the

police report. The Magistrate, disagreeing with the police report, issued

summons to them under Section 190 Cr.P.C. without invoking the

procedure under Sections 200 or 202. That order was upheld in

revision and confirmed by the High Court.

13. The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court, where, in

view of conflicting precedents (Kishun Singh and Ranjit Singh), a

Constitution Bench of five Judges considered the following questions

(para 7 of the judgment):

A. Whether a committing Magistrate has any role to play after

committing the case to the Court of Session?

B. Whether the Magistrate, on disagreeing with the police report,

has jurisdiction to summon accused persons shown in

Column 2?

8 NTR,J

C. Whether, before issuing such summons, the Magistrate must

follow the complaint procedure under Sections 200-202

Cr.P.C.?

D. Whether the Sessions Judge can issue summons under Section

193 Cr.P.C. as a Court of original jurisdiction?

E. Whether, after committal, the Sessions Judge must wait until

Section 319 Cr.P.C. stage to summon additional accused?

F. Whether the decision in Ranjit Singh 1 (overruling Kishun Singh 2)

was rightly decided?

14. The Constitution Bench held inter alia:

i. On receiving a police report disclosing that the case is triable by

the Sessions Court, the Magistrate's only function is to commit

the case.

ii. However, the Magistrate has ample powers to disagree with the

police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and may proceed

against persons omitted in the charge-sheet, even dehors the

police report. This power, significantly, is not available to the

Sessions Court until the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is

reached.

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1998) 7 SCC 149 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1554

Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar (1993) 2 SCC 16 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 470 9 NTR,J

iii. Thus, before committal, the Magistrate may entertain a protest

petition, issue process, or summon additional accused if

satisfied that a prima facie case exists.

iv. After committal, the Sessions Court assumes original jurisdiction

under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and, in that capacity, can itself

entertain a protest petition or private complaint, and pass orders

in accordance with law.

v. It was clarified that the Sessions Court is not required to wait

until the Section 319 stage to summon additional accused once

cognizance is taken under Section 193.

15. The Bench thus reconciled the earlier conflicting views and laid

down that both the Magistrate (pre-committal) and the Sessions Court

(post-committal) possess powers to deal with protest

petitions/complaints, albeit at different procedural stages.

16. In the present case, the protest petition/private complaint was

admittedly filed after committal of the matter and after the Sessions

Court had already taken cognizance. In view of the law laid down in

Dharam Pal (supra), it is the Sessions Court alone that possesses

jurisdiction to entertain such a protest petition. Accordingly, the order

of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bhupalpally, refusing to

entertain the petition is legally unsustainable. Conversely, the return 10 NTR,J

endorsement by the learned Magistrate declining jurisdiction is found

to be proper and justified.

17. In light of the foregoing discussion, the following legal position

emerges:

a) Under Section 193 Cr.P.C., once a case is committed by the

Magistrate, the Court of Session assumes original jurisdiction

and is competent to take cognizance of offences.

b) Before committal, the Magistrate may entertain a protest

petition or private complaint and proceed under Section 190

Cr.P.C., including against persons whose names appear in

Column 2 of the police report.

c) After committal, the Sessions Court, exercising original

jurisdiction, alone is competent to entertain and adjudicate a

protest petition or private complaint concerning deletion of

accused, and it need not defer such consideration until the stage

of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is reached.

18. In the present case, since the protest petition was filed post-

committal, the Magistrate rightly declined jurisdiction; however, the

Principal Sessions Judge erred in returning the petition instead of

entertaining it.

11 NTR,J

19. In view of the above, the impugned docket order

dated 14.06.2022 in S.R. No. 5 of 2022 in S.C. No. 265 of 2021 on the

file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhupalpally, is

hereby set aside. The revision petitioner is directed to represent the

protest petition before the learned Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Bhupalpally, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order. Upon such presentation, the learned Principal Sessions