Case Name: Court on its own motion v. State
Case Number: CRL.REF. 2/2022
Court: High Court of Delhi
Date of Judgement: 29th October 2025
Bench/ Quorum: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
FACTS
The case arose out of FIR 239/2018 under section 307 of IPC against the accused Dev Raj Nagar. After the completion of the investigation, the prosecution filed the chargesheet before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Since, the case was exclusively triable under the Sessions Court, on 7th of December 2020, under section 209, the magistrate committed the case before the Sessions Court.
Subsequently, after the chargesheet was already committed to the Sessions Court, the Investigating Officer, filed a supplementary chargesheet on 12th September 2022, before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Magistrate stated that after the committal of the chargesheet before the Sessions Court, it becomes functus officio and henceforth forwarded the supplementary chargesheet to the Sessions Court.
However, the Sessions Court, stated that, the supplementary chargesheet should primarily be filed before the magistrate, who must then ensure the supply of the copies of the chargesheet to the accused before transmitting them. This arose contradiction in Delhi regarding:
- The correct forum for the supply of supplementary chargesheet before committal.
- Which Court has the power to order further investigation after committal.
Henceforth, due to the confusion, the matter was further taken to the Delhi High Court, under section 395(2) of CrPC by the Magistrate.
ISSUES
- Whether after the committal of the case before the Sessions Court, supplementary chargesheet should be filed in the Sessions Court or the Ilaqa Magistrate.
- Upon the committal of the case who has the repository power to order further investigation, Ilaqa Magistrate or the Court of Sessions?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 173(2), 173(8), 190, 193, 209 (Final police report, further investigation completed, Cognizance of offences by magistrate, Cognizance of offences by Court of Session, Commitment of case to court of session when offence is triable exclusively by it)
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023- (Report of police officer on completion of investigation)
ARGUMENTS
Amicus Curiae:
It was argued that, under section 173 of CrPC every Police Report, whether original or supplementary must be submitted to the magistrate. The Section does not distinguish between cases exclusively triable under the Sessions Court or the Magistrate. Henceforth, even though the case has been committed, the Magistrate remains in the authority to receive supplementary chargesheet under section 173(8) of the CrPC.
It was further submitted that, additional evidence may surface or new accused persons may be added. In case of such situations arising, notifying the prosecution, supplying documents to the accused, issuing the documents falls under the purview of the Magistrate. The Magistrate having to carry out such function, at the time of filing of original chargesheet, is better placed to compliance under section 207 and 208 of CrPC than recommitting the matter to the Court of Sessions.
Several judicial precedents were taken into consideration to support this contention. Some of them are, Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, 2014 3SCC 306, Gangula Ashok v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 2 SCC 504, Natesan v. Peethambaran, 1984 CriLJ 324 (Kerela HC), and many more, and all of these judgements state that supplementary reports must be sent to the Magistrate for appropriate procedural action.
In furtherance to answer the second issue, the Sessions Court under section 209 of CrPC, becomes the Trial Court and gains full authority under section 193 of CrPC. Hence, the authority to order further investigation lies with the Sessions Court and not the Magistrate.
State:
The state in its argument submitted that supplementary chargesheets are at times submitted to the Magistrate and sometimes directly before the Sessions Court, as per the directions of the Trial Court, which has led to the inconsistency in the procedure.
It was further argued by the state that, Magistrate must consider both initial chargesheet under section 173 (2) and supplementary under section 173 (8). Only after this can the Magistrate decide whether sufficient grounds suffice to proceed against the accused.
The State submitted the precedent of Vinubhai Haribhai v. State of Gujrat (2019) 17 SCC 1, the Magistrate may still order further investigation until the trial originally begins. It was also argued citing Gurjinder Singh, that “further investigation” is the continuous of the original investigation and does not amount to reinvestigation. Henceforth the Magistrate’s power may continue until the trial commences.
ANALYSIS
The Court stated that under section 173(8), supplementary reports are treated as Police Reports in continuity of the original investigation. This means Magistrate remains in the position to receive such reports. Further, after the committal, Sessions Court act as the Trial Court.
Accordingly filing the procedural acknowledgement of the chargesheet must occur before the Magistrate, and once the case stands committed, the power to further direct investigation rests with the Sessions Court, as it becomes the Court of Original Jurisdiction for trial purposes.
The BNSS clearly states that, further investigation of trial may proceed rests only with the Trial Court, which in the committed cases is with the Sessions Court.
JUDGEMENT
The Court held that, Supplementary Chargesheet shall be filed before the Magistrate, who shall process with the procedure, and if necessary recommit the case to the Sessions Court.
The Court held that, the authority to order further investigation lies with the Trial Court, being the Court of Trial.
CONCLUSION
The judgement harmonizes and clarifies the procedural clarity as to the roles of the Magistrate and the Sessions Court. It ensures, uniform practice across Delhi, as well as avoids jurisdictional uncertainty as well as aligns with statutory interpretation and judicial standards while also reaffirming the structured distribution of authority between Magistrates and Sessions Court.
Click here to read more: Court on its own motion v. State
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Soumita Chakraborty
