KALLU NAT ALIAS MAYANK KUMAR NAGAR — VERSUS — STATE OF U P
1. Document Details:
| Court | Case No | Date | Bench/Parties |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court of India | 2025 INSC 930 | 05 August 2025 | J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan; Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar vs. State of U.P. and Anr. |
Executive Overview:
The Supreme Court of India addressed a Special Leave Petition filed by Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar against the order of the High Court, which affirmed a trial court's decision summoning him as an accused in a murder and rape case. The Court examined the legality of the trial court invoking Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to summon the petitioner, examining whether this constituted a second taking of cognizance after a Magistrate had already done so.
Detailed Factual Matrix:
The petitioner was implicated in a murder and rape case after the victim went missing and was later found dead. Initial investigations led to another suspect, Ajay, being charged, while the petitioner was later named as co-accused following witness testimonies suggesting his involvement. After a delay of nearly five years, the trial court finally summoned the petitioner to face charges alongside Ajay, based on the evidence presented. The High Court rejected the petitioner’s revision appeal, maintaining the trial court's decision.
Issues/Charges:
- Can a Court of Session summon a person to stand trial under Section 193 CrPC without the recording of evidence?
- What is the legal interpretation of 'taking cognizance' under the CrPC?
- Can cognizance of an offence be taken by both a Magistrate and a Sessions Court?
Submissions of the Parties:
Petitioner:
- Asserted that the trial court incorrectly invoked Section 193 CrPC after the Magistrate's cognizance.
- Claimed that the trial court should only summon once evidence has been recorded under Section 319 CrPC.
- Argued that two separate cognizances are not permitted, as emphasized in prior judgments.
Respondent (State of U.P.):
- Contended that the trial court acted within its legal powers by summoning the petitioner based on substantive evidence.
- Supported the claim that the Sessions Court should be allowed to take cognizance and summon additional accused/entities as needed.
Court’s Detailed Analysis & Reasoning:
Issue 1: Cognizance under Section 193 CrPC
- The Court clarified that cognizance can only be taken once, either by the Magistrate or by the Sessions Court but not both. Once a case has been committed by a Magistrate to a Sessions Court, it possesses the authority to act on the case, including summoning other accused individuals as necessary.
Issue 2: Legal Interpretation of 'Cognizance'
- The term ‘cognizance’ implies judicial awareness of a crime, requiring application of mind to initiate proceedings. This concept is aligned with ensuring that no cases are prematurely decided without sufficient evidence. The focus is placed on the offence, not the individual accused.
Issue 3: Role of the Sessions Court
- The Sessions Court is mandated to conduct trials for cases committed to it and takes cognizance of the case as a whole, suggesting that if evidence indicates other individuals' involvement, it has the authority to summon them.
Precedents Cited:
- Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2014) 3 SCC 306: Established that a single cognizance be taken by either court and clarified the roles of Magistrates and Sessions Courts in cognizance and summoning.
- Balveer Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 6 SCC 680: Reinforced that no fresh cognizance can occur after an initial cognizance is taken.
Final Outcome/Operative Order:
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming that the trial court's decision to summon the petitioner was legitimate and within its jurisdiction. The trial is required to commence and be completed within six months, ensuring justice and swift proceedings against the accused.