Sessions Court Can Direct Summoning of Accused in Criminal Revision Even After Magistrate Accepts Cancellation Report; Revisional Powers Not Confined to Ordering Further Inquiry: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Suresh Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: 08.10.2026
Citation: CRM-M-57318-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a Sessions Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Sections 399 and 401 CrPC, possesses the power to direct the summoning of accused persons where sufficient grounds exist to proceed, even after a Magistrate has accepted a police cancellation report and dismissed the complainant’s protest petition.
The Court clarified that revisional jurisdiction is not restricted to ordering further inquiry under Section 398 CrPC. The wider powers conferred by Section 399 read with Section 401(1) permit the Revisional Court to set aside an erroneous order of the Magistrate and issue appropriate consequential directions, including summoning of accused persons, subject to statutory limitations.
Summary: The petitioners challenged an order dated 14.09.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the Revisional Court set aside the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order accepting a cancellation report and dismissing the complainant’s protest petition. The Revisional Court, upon examining the material, directed that the petitioners be summoned as accused in a criminal case arising from allegations of assault, causing injuries, criminal trespass and intimidation.
The petitioners contended that the Revisional Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own assessment for that of the Magistrate and directing summoning instead of remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Rejecting the contention, the High Court relied principally upon the Division Bench judgment in Bal Kishan Jain v. Indian Overseas Bank, 1981 Cri LJ 796, which expressly recognised that the Sessions Court’s revisional powers under Section 399 read with Section 401(1) CrPC extend to directing the summoning of accused persons or framing of charges.
The Court also examined Rajendra Rajoriya v. Jagat Narain Thapak, AIR 2018 SC 1229, and clarified that the Supreme Court had not laid down an absolute prohibition against revisional courts issuing directions concerning cognizance or summoning. Rather, Sections 397, 398, 399 and 401 CrPC must be read harmoniously to determine the extent of revisional jurisdiction.
The Court observed that revisional powers extend beyond correcting procedural irregularities and include interference with jurisdictional errors, material irregularities and manifestly erroneous conclusions. Accordingly, a Revisional Court is competent to issue consequential directions for summoning where justified by the material on record.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition under Section 528 BNSS, upholding the Additional Sessions Judge’s order dated 14.09.2026 directing the summoning of the petitioners as accused.
The Court held that the Revisional Court had acted within its statutory jurisdiction after finding sufficient grounds to proceed, and that its order disclosed no patent illegality, jurisdictional transgression or material irregularity warranting interference.