Dharampal vs State of Haryana - Case Analysis

Introduction of Dharampal vs State of Haryana

The case of Dharampal vs State of Haryana revolves around the appellants, Dharam Pal and others, who were initially named as accused in the First Information Report but placed in column 2 of the police report. In this case, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class summoned the appellants along with three others not named in the charge-sheet to face trial alongside Nafe Singh. The important questions addressed in this case was about the role of the Committing Magistrate and the powers of the Sessions Court regarding the summoning of additional accused after a case is committed to the Court of Session. The decision in this case also addressed the confusion arising from two conflicting decisions namely, Kishun Singh vs State of Bihar and Ranjit Singh vs State of Punjab.

Historical Context and Facts of Dharampal vs State of Haryana

The case at hand, centres around the Appellants namely, Dharam Pal and others who were named as accused in the First Information Report but were included in column 2 of the police report.

Judicial Proceedings

The appellants along with three others were summoned by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class who were not named in the charge-sheet to face trial next to Nafe Singh.

Legal Action

The Magistrate claimed to have been acting in accordance with Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, but did not follow other relevant provisions.

Supreme Court Review

The matter was brought before a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court where it was noted that two prior rulings directly impacted the case-

• In Kishun Singh vs State of Bihar it was held that the Sessions Court has the authority to take cognizance of the offence and summon additional individuals.
• In Ranjit Singh vs State of Punjab it was clarified that the Sessions Court can only deal with those accused specifically mentioned in Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Court also held that no interim procedure exists for adding additional defendants prior to that point.

Issue addressed in Dharampal vs State of Haryana

The main question which was addressed in this case-

• Does the Committing Magistrate have any other role to play after committing the case to the Court of Session on finding from the police report that the case was triable by the Court of Session?
• If the Magistrate disagrees with the police report and is convinced that a case had also been made out for trial against the persons. Does he have the jurisdiction to issue summons against them also in order to include their names, along with Nafe Singh, to stand trial in connection with the case made out in the police report?
• Having decided to issue summons against the Appellants, was the Magistrate required to follow the procedure of a complaint case and to take evidence before committing them to the Court of Session to stand trial or whether he was justified in issuing summons against them without following such procedure?
• Can the Session Judge issue summons under Section 193 Cr.P.C. as a Court of original jurisdiction?
• Upon the case being committed to the Court of Session, could the Session Judge issue summons separately under Section 193 of the Code or would he have to wait till the stage under Section 319 of the Code was reached in order to take recourse thereto?

Legal Provisions involved in Dharampal vs State of Haryana

• Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Cognizance of offence by the Magistrate 
• Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Cognizance of offences by Court of Session
• Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Examination of Complaint
• Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Postponement of issue of process
• Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Issue of process
• Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it
• Section 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Framing of charge
• Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence
• Article 20 of the Constitution of India: Protection in respect of conviction for offences
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Protection of life and personal liberty

Judgment and Impact of Dharampal vs State of Haryana

The decision in Dharampal vs State of Haryana answered questions regarding the roles of the Committing Magistrate and the Session Judge. The Supreme Court in this case rejected the argument of the Petitioner that there could be no intermediary stage between taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code and issuing summons to the accused. The absence of such a stage would leave the Committing Magistrate and the Session Judge without control over individuals named in column 2 of the police report until the trial reaches Section 319 stage.

The Court noted that the Magistrate has the authority to disagree with the police report and take action against accused persons. If the Magistrate disagrees with the report, he can either act on a protest petition or issue summons to the accused. If he is satisfied, he may then commit the case to the Court of Session.

The decision in this case confirmed that the Session Judge is entitled to issue summons under Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 upon receiving the case from the Committing Magistrate.

The Court in reference to Kishun Singh’s case confirmed that Session Courts have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences involving individuals not named as accused even in case of the absence of recorded evidence. Upon committal, the Session Judge can summon those listed in column 2 of the police report for trial.

The Court upheld the correctness of the decision in Kishun Singh’s case and allowed the learned Session Judge to issue summons under Section 193 based on the records provided to him.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the decision in Kishun Singh vs State of Bihar was correct in interpretation of the powers of the Sessions Court after a case is committed by the Magistrate, resolving the confusion caused by conflicting rulings. The decision clarified procedural roles, prevented unnecessary delays and strengthened the authority of both Magistrates and Sessions Judges in efficiently handling criminal cases.