Committal Orders Under Section 209 CrPC Are Purely Interlocutory and Cannot Be Challenged Through Revision: Punjab and Haryana High Court Restores Statutory Scheme

Case Name: Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Date of Judgment: 10 July 2026

Citation: CRM-M-24290-2018

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a committal order passed under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is purely interlocutory in nature and, therefore, cannot be challenged by way of a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC. The Court observed that the Magistrate, while exercising powers under Section 209 CrPC, performs only a ministerial function of committing the case to the Court of Sessions where the offences are exclusively triable by that Court and does not adjudicate upon the merits of the allegations or determine the guilt of the accused.

The Court further held that the Sessions Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by entertaining and allowing a revision petition against the committal order. Such interference was contrary to the settled legal position laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court that interlocutory orders are immune from revisional scrutiny under Section 397(2) CrPC. Accordingly, the revisional order setting aside the committal order was quashed, while leaving the parties at liberty to avail any remedy otherwise permissible in law.

Summary: The petition was instituted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby a committal order dated 15 February 2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class was set aside and the criminal case was remanded to the Magistrate for trial.

The dispute arose out of FIR No. 45 dated 30 March 2013 registered under Sections 323, 324, 452, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon examining the police report and medical evidence, the Magistrate formed a prima facie opinion that offences under Sections 459 and 460 IPC were also attracted, both of which are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Consequently, the Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 CrPC.

The accused challenged the committal order by filing a criminal revision before the Sessions Court. Exercising revisional jurisdiction, the Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the offences were triable by the Magistrate and accordingly set aside the committal order, remanding the matter for magisterial trial.

Aggrieved by this course of action, the complainant approached the High Court contending that the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a revision against a committal order, since such an order is purely interlocutory and barred from revisional challenge under Section 397(2) CrPC.

The High Court examined the statutory framework governing committal proceedings and relied extensively upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State represented by Inspector of Police v. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate and the earlier decision of this Court in Sumesh Chand v. State of Haryana.

Justice Sanjay Vashisth observed that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate exercising powers under Section 209 does not undertake an evaluation of whether sufficient grounds exist for framing charges. Unlike the old Code, the Magistrate merely commits the case where the offences disclosed are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The responsibility of independently scrutinising the material and determining whether charges ought to be framed lies exclusively with the Sessions Court under Section 227 CrPC.

The Court emphasised that a committal order neither determines the rights of the parties nor decides any substantive issue affecting the trial. It merely advances the procedural stage of the criminal proceedings. Since such an order lacks finality and does not adjudicate upon the merits of the prosecution case, it squarely falls within the category of interlocutory orders.

The Court further noted that there are numerous situations where, after examining the record under Section 227 CrPC, the Sessions Court may itself conclude that the offences are not exclusively triable by it and remit the matter back to the Magistrate. This itself demonstrates that a committal order does not attain finality and cannot be treated as an adjudicatory determination.

Holding that the Sessions Court had exercised revisional jurisdiction contrary to the statutory bar contained in Section 397(2) CrPC, the High Court concluded that the impugned revisional order could not be sustained.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 18 April 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, which had interfered with the Magistrate’s committal order. The Court restored the legal position that a committal order under Section 209 CrPC is interlocutory and not amenable to revision, while granting liberty to the parties to avail any remedy otherwise available under law.