Supreme Court: Magistrate Need Not Record Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 244 CrPC in Sessions Cases

A Magistrate is not required to record pre-charge evidence under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before committing a complaint case that involves an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session. That is the effect of a Supreme Court judgment delivered on 1 July 2026 in Neeraj Gupta v. Pardeep Kumar Bansal (2026 INSC 660), which clarifies a point of criminal procedure that frequently arises in private complaint cases involving serious offences such as murder. The ruling removes a layer of duplication that had crept into the committal process and reaffirms how private complaints for grave offences must travel from the Magistrate to the Sessions Court.

What the Supreme Court Decided

The dispute arose from a private complaint alleging an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which is triable exclusively by a Court of Session. The High Court had taken the view that the Magistrate was obliged to record the complainant's evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing the case. The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that Section 244, which deals with the recording of prosecution evidence, applies only to warrant cases that a Magistrate is competent to try. Where the offence is one that only a Court of Session can try, the Magistrate has no trial role at all, so the pre-charge evidence stage under Section 244 simply does not arise.

How Section 244 CrPC Operates

Section 244 CrPC falls within the chapter governing the trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report, that is, on a private complaint. In such cases the Magistrate is directed to hear the prosecution and take all evidence produced in support of the prosecution before deciding whether to frame a charge. The provision exists so that a Magistrate who will actually conduct the trial can assess whether there is a case to answer. Its entire premise is that the same Magistrate has jurisdiction to try the offence. That premise fails when the offence is one reserved for the Court of Session.

Why Committal Under Section 209 Is Different

When an offence is triable exclusively by a Court of Session, Section 209 CrPC requires the Magistrate to commit the case to that court. The Supreme Court explained that the Magistrate's function at this stage is essentially to ensure the case reaches the correct forum, not to weigh evidence or test the strength of the complaint. Framing of charge and recording of evidence then take place before the Sessions Court. Reading a duty to record Section 244 evidence into this process would graft a trial-stage exercise onto a court that has no power to try the offence. For readers tracking how the criminal process begins, our guide on how to file an FIR online under the BNSS sets out the earliest stages, while committal is a later step for the gravest offences.

The Problem of Making Witnesses Depose Twice

A key practical concern animated the Court's reasoning. If a Magistrate recorded the complainant's witnesses under Section 244 and then committed the matter, the same witnesses would have to give evidence again before the Sessions Court. That would force witnesses to depose twice on the same facts without any legal necessity, lengthen already slow proceedings, and create needless opportunities for inconsistency to be exploited. The Court's approach keeps evidence recording where it belongs, in the trial court that will decide guilt or innocence. This concern for efficient and dignified procedure echoes recent decisions, including the Supreme Court striking down degrading bail conditions, where the Court insisted that criminal procedure respect both speed and fairness.

What This Means for Complaint Cases

For anyone pursuing or defending a private complaint that discloses a Sessions-triable offence, the position is now clear. The Magistrate should apply the committal route rather than embark on recording pre-charge evidence. Complainants should be prepared to lead their evidence before the Court of Session, and accused persons cannot insist on an additional evidence stage before the Magistrate as a matter of right. The corresponding scheme has been re-enacted in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, so the logic of the judgment continues to guide committal practice under the new criminal laws. Understanding your rights if you are arrested under the BNSS helps place these procedural safeguards in context.

Related Reading

Readers may also find it useful to review how to apply for regular bail under the BNSS, and the analysis of the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223 BNSS, which together explain how complaint cases move through the criminal courts.

Key Takeaways

1. In Neeraj Gupta v. Pardeep Kumar Bansal (2026 INSC 660), the Supreme Court held that a Magistrate need not record pre-charge evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing a Sessions-triable complaint case. 2. Section 244 applies only to warrant cases that a Magistrate is competent to try, not to offences triable exclusively by a Court of Session. 3. Under Section 209 CrPC, the Magistrate commits such cases to the Court of Session without a pre-committal evidence inquiry. 4. The ruling prevents witnesses from having to depose twice on the same facts. 5. The committal scheme continues under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.