Summary and Analysis of Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar vs State of UP (2025 INSC 930)

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar vs State of UP & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 930
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan
Date: 5 August 2025

2. Relevant Laws and Sections

The judgment interprets key provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):

• Section 190: Magistrate’s power to take cognizance of offences.

• Section 193: Restriction on Sessions Court’s power to take cognizance (only after committal by Magistrate).

• Section 209: Magistrate’s duty to commit sessions-triable cases to the Court of Session.

• Section 319: Power of courts to proceed against other persons appearing guilty during trial.

• Sections 226–228: Procedure for trial before Sessions Courts (opening case, discharge, framing of charge).

3. Basic Case Details

Background Facts

• A murder-rape case (Sections 302/376 IPC) was registered based on an FIR by the victim’s husband, initially naming only Ajay Kumar as the accused.

• During investigation, the petitioner (Kallu Nat) was implicated through witness statements, mobile records, and an extrajudicial confession. However, the Crime Branch gave him a "clean chit," and only Ajay was charge-sheeted.

• After committal to the Sessions Court, the victim’s husband filed an application under Section 193 CrPC seeking to summon Kallu Nat as an additional accused. The Sessions Court allowed this, citing prima facie evidence against him.

Lower Courts’ Decisions

• Sessions Court: Summoned Kallu Nat as an accused under Section 193 CrPC based on case diary evidence.

• Allahabad High Court: Rejected Kallu Nat’s revision, upholding the Sessions Court’s order. Relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana (2014).

Issue Before Supreme Court

Whether a Sessions Court can summon a person as an accused under Section 193 CrPC (post-committal) based on materials in the police report, without waiting for evidence under Section 319 CrPC?

4. Explanation of the Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding Kallu Nat’s summoning. Its core reasoning is summarized below:

A. Cognizance Is "Of Offence, Not Offender"

• Magistrate’s Role (Section 190): When a case involves sessions-triable offences, the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence (not specific offenders) and commits the case (not accused) to the Sessions Court under Section 209 CrPC.

• Sessions Court’s Power (Section 193): After committal, the Sessions Court assumes "original jurisdiction" and can summon any person against whom prima facie evidence exists in the police report/case diary. This is distinct from Section 319, which applies mid-trial after evidence is recorded.

B. No "Second Cognizance"

• The petitioner argued that since the Magistrate took cognizance first, the Sessions Court could not take "fresh cognizance" under Section 193. The Court rejected this:
  Committal transfers the case, not cognizance. The Sessions Court’s power to summon under Section 193 flows from its original jurisdiction post-committal.
  Dharam Pal Case Clarified: The Constitution Bench in Dharam Pal did not strip Sessions Courts of summoning powers. Instead, it affirmed that cognizance is taken once (by Magistrate), but Sessions Courts can still summon additional accused based on case records.

C. Sections 193 vs. 319 CrPC

Section 193Section 319Applied post-committal but before trial (pre-evidence stage).Applied during trial after recording evidence.Based on police report/case diary.Based on evidence recorded in court.Ensures all culprits face trial from the outset.Catches offenders revealed during proceedings.

D. Fairness in Trial

• The Court emphasized that procedural laws (CrPC) must serve justice. If police reports wrongly exonerate an accused (as alleged here), Sessions Courts must summon them under Section 193 to prevent injustice.

• Quoting Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar (1967):
  "Once cognizance is taken of an offence, it is the court’s duty to find all offenders and summon them."

5. Conclusion and Directions

• Verdict: Kallu Nat’s summoning under Section 193 CrPC was legally valid. The Sessions Court rightly relied on prima facie evidence (witness statements, CDR, confessions) implicating him.

• Trial Directed: The Sessions Court must conclude the trial within 6 months from this judgment.

• Clarification: This judgment harmonizes Sections 193 and 319 CrPC, affirming that:
  Sessions Courts can summon additional accused at the committal stage under Section 193, eliminating delays in bringing all offenders to trial.

Final Order: Special Leave Petition dismissed.

Key Takeaway: The judgment strengthens the Sessions Court’s authority to ensure all prima facie culprits face trial, even if improperly excluded by investigating agencies. It clarifies that Section 193 CrPC is a vital tool for comprehensive justice, distinct from Section 319.