The Revisional Court of Sessions

2 in Balveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan [Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2016] have carved an exception to what 5 held in Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2014) 3 SCC 306. Dharam Pal was authored by Altamas Kabir, CJI.

My Lord, Can a Sessions Court take cognizance of offence, under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC, when similar application has been rejected by JMFC, while committing case to Sessions Court, taking cognizance of offence only under Section 306, IPC and specifically refusing to take cognizance of offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC?

Normally, such a course of action would not be permissible. Magistrate had taken cognizance of offence. Notwithstanding same, Sessions Court on similar application made by complainant before it, took cognizance thereupon. In event, a Magistrate takes cognizance of offence and then commits case to Sessions Court, question of taking fresh cognizance of offence and, thereafter, proceed to issue summons, is not in accordance with law.”


Court of Sessions was not powerless to pass an order in its revisionary jurisdiction. We find, order of Magistrate refusing to take cognizance is revisable. This power of revision can be exercised by Superior Court, which in this case, will be Court of Sessions itself, either on a revision petition that can be filed by aggrieved party or even suo moto by Revisional Court itself.”

We are not inclined to interfere.”


Also see, Nahar Singh v. State of U.P., [Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 2022] decided on 16.03.2022.