Criminal Procedure Code

Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan

(2012) 12 SCC 406

Facts

A woman lodged an FIR alleging that Ajay Kumar Parmar had wrongfully confined and raped her.
During investigation, she independently approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate and requested recording of her statement under Section 164 CrPC.
Her Section 164 statement exonerated the accused.
Questions arose about how she had approached the court, whether she had been properly identified and whether the statement had been recorded with sufficient procedural care.
The police nevertheless filed a charge-sheet for offences exclusively triable by the Court of Session.
The Judicial Magistrate relied heavily on the Section 164 statement, refused to take cognizance and discharged the accused.
The Sessions Court set aside that order, and the High Court affirmed the Sessions Court’s decision.
Ajay Kumar Parmar appealed to the Supreme Court. ( )

Whether a Magistrate may assess evidence and discharge an accused when the police report alleges an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session.
Whether the Magistrate could rely on the Section 164 statement to refuse committal.

Sections 207 to 209 CrPC govern supply of documents and committal of cases to the Court of Session.
Where the police report discloses an offence exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the Magistrate’s function is limited.
The Magistrate must:
ensure supply of documents;
comply with procedural requirements; and
commit the case to the Sessions Court.
The Magistrate cannot at that stage:
weigh prosecution and defence material;
decide witness credibility;
determine whether the victim is truthful;
conduct a mini-trial; or
discharge the accused from the sessions-triable offence.
The Sessions Court may consider discharge under Section 227.
A Section 164 statement is not itself substantive evidence.
It may be used for limited corroborative or contradictory purposes according to law.
Sections 210, 232 and 250 BNSS broadly correspond to Sections 190, 209 and 227 CrPC.

The police report alleged offences under Sections 376 and 342 IPC, including an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session.
Once that report and supporting material were placed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate could not choose between:
the original complaint;
the police material; and
the later Section 164 statement.
That evaluation belonged to the Sessions Court at the discharge or trial stage.
The Magistrate effectively treated the Section 164 statement as final proof that no offence had occurred.
This was legally incorrect for two reasons.
First, the statement was not substantive trial evidence.
Second, serious doubts existed regarding:
the identity of the person who approached the Magistrate;
the manner in which she was presented;
and differences in signatures appearing on the documents.
These matters required evidentiary examination and could not be conclusively resolved at committal.
The committal stage is intentionally narrow.
Its purpose is to move a sessions-triable case to the court legally empowered to decide discharge, charge and guilt.
Allowing the Magistrate to conduct a detailed merits inquiry would:
duplicate the Sessions Court’s function;
delay proceedings;
exclude the victim from an effective hearing;
and defeat the statutory distribution of jurisdiction.
The accused remained free to rely on the Section 164 statement before the Sessions Court.
Thus, setting aside the Magistrate’s order did not presume guilt; it merely sent the case to the proper forum.

The Supreme Court upheld the orders of the Sessions Court and High Court setting aside the discharge.
It held that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to weigh the evidence and discharge the accused from offences exclusively triable by the Court of Session.
The case had to be committed under Section 209, after which the Sessions Court could consider discharge under Section 227.
The judgment is a leading authority on the limited and largely administrative nature of committal proceedings.