Sessions Court May Summon Uncharged Persons After Committal; Cognizance Remains Of The Offence, Not The Offender

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard a Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court of Allahabad’s April 3, 2025 order which upheld a trial court’s exercise of power under Section 193 CrPC to summon a person not named in the chargesheet to stand trial in a rape–murder prosecution. The petition raised the narrow question whether a Sessions Court, without recording oral testimony, could summon an additional accused on the basis of the materials sent with committal papers or whether the procedure under Section 319 CrPC alone governed such addition.

The Court affirmed the legal position that cognizance was a function of the court in respect of an offence and not of particular accused, reiterated that “cognizance of an offence can only be taken once,” and held that upon committal the Sessions Court acquired original-jurisdictional power to deal with the whole case and, if prima facie materials warranted, to summon additional persons. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Both under Sections 209 and 193 respectively of the Code 1973 commitment is of, the ‘case’ and not of the ‘accused’ ... Even though the case is committed yet cognizance taken is of the offence and not the offender. Once the case in respect of the offence qua the accused, who are before the Court, is committed and cognizance is taken, the embargo under Section 193 regarding taking cognizance only by committal goes. Summoning additional persons will then be regarded as incidental to the cognizance already taken on committal and as, a part, of, the normal process that follows. A fresh committal of such person is not necessary.” The Court dismissed the petition and directed that trial court should frame charge if not yet framed and complete the trial within six months.

Background The dispute arose from the alleged murder and rape of Shivwati in November 2018. The FIR named Ajay as a suspect; during investigation the petitioner (Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar) surfaced in police papers and some witnesses’ Section 161 statements implicated him. The Crime Branch later submitted a final report and the chargesheet (February 21, 2019) accused only Ajay; the petitioner’s name was omitted. The magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court on March 11, 2019 as exclusively triable by that court. On April 2, 2019 the victim’s husband filed an application under Section 193 CrPC to summon the petitioner; it took nearly five years for the trial court to allow the application and order summons. The petitioner challenged that order before the High Court, which rejected the revision relying on this Court’s Constitution Bench precedent in Dharam Pal and held that the Sessions Court could take cognizance on committal and summon additional persons shown by material to be implicated. The petitioner argued that once a magistrate had taken cognizance and committed the case, the Sessions Court could not take a second cognizance and could add accused only under Section 319 after evidence was recorded; he relied on Balveer Singh and other authorities. The State’s A.G.A. countered that the Sessions Court acquired original-jurisdictional power on committal under Section 193 and could act on the materials forwarded in the committal. The Supreme Court examined the scheme of Chapter XIV–XVI CrPC, the nature of cognizance, the difference between cognizance of an offence and discharge of accused, and precedents including Dharam Pal, Kishun Singh and Raghubans Dubey. Applying those principles, the Court found no jurisdictional error in the High Court’s conclusion. The petition was dismissed; the trial court was directed to proceed to frame charge (if not already done) and complete trial within six months. The Registry was directed to circulate copies of the judgment to all High Courts.

Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10010 of 2025 (2025 INSC 930) Case Title: Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v. State of U.P. & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Learned A.G.A. for State – opposite party‑1 (designation as appearing in record)