Chapter XXI
Section 260 CrPC: Power to try summarily
New Law Update (2024)
Section 269 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Metropolitan Magistrate, Magistrate of the first class specially empowered by the High Court
Punishment
Death or Life Imprisonment
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code—
(a) any Chief Judicial Magistrate;
(b) any Metropolitan Magistrate;
(c) any Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court,
may, if he thinks fit, try in a summary way all or any of the following offences:—
(i) offences not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years;
(ii) theft, under section 379, section 380 or section 381 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where the value of the property stolen does not exceed two hundred rupees;
(iii) receiving or retaining stolen property, under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where the value of the property does not exceed two hundred rupees;
(iv) assisting in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) where the value of such property does not exceed two hundred rupees;
(v) offences under sections 454 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
(vi) insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, under section 504 and criminal intimidation punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
(vii) abetment of any of the foregoing offences;
(viii) an attempt to commit any of the foregoing offences, when such attempt is an offence;
(ix) any offence constituted by an act in respect of which a complaint may be made under section 20 of the Cattle-Trespass Act, 1871 (1 of 1871).
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 260(1)
This sub-section empowers specific judicial officers—Chief Judicial Magistrates, Metropolitan Magistrates, and High Court-empowered First Class Magistrates—to conduct summary trials. it lists the categories of offences that can be tried summarily, primarily focusing on minor offences punishable with less than two years’ imprisonment, specific theft, property-related offences, and certain public order offences under the Indian Penal Code, along with their abetment or attempts, and offences under the Cattle-Trespass Act.
Landmark Judgements
S. K. Bhalla v. State, 2011 (1) RCR (Cri) 1 (Delhi High Court):
The Delhi High Court emphasized that summary trials under Section 260 CrPC are designed for expeditious disposal of less serious offences. It reiterated that the primary purpose is to save time, avoid unnecessary delays, and reduce the burden on courts, without compromising the fundamental principles of fair trial.
K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, AIR 1992 SC 212:
Although primarily dealing with discharge in summons cases, this Supreme Court judgment indirectly reinforces the summary trial principles by highlighting the need for magistrates to apply their mind to the facts before proceeding, indicating that even in summary proceedings, a basic level of judicial scrutiny is essential, distinguishing it from an arbitrary process.