Chapter XXIV
Section 322 CrPC: Procedure in cases which Magistrate cannot dispose of
New Law Update (2024)
Section 329 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Magistrate, Chief Judicial Magistrate
Punishment
Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) If, in the course of any inquiry into an offence or a trial before a Magistrate in any district, the evidence appears to him to warrant a presumption—
(a) that he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial; or
(b) that the case is one which should be tried or committed for trial by some other Magistrate in the district; or
(c) that the case should be tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
he shall stay the proceedings and submit the case, with a brief report explaining its nature, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or to such other Magistrate, having jurisdiction, as the Chief Judicial Magistrate directs.
(2) The Magistrate to whom the case is submitted may, if so empowered, either try the case himself, or refer it to any Magistrate subordinate to him having jurisdiction, or commit the accused for trial.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 322(1)
This sub-section outlines the circumstances under which a Magistrate must stop ongoing proceedings and refer a case to a higher authority, specifically when they believe they lack the jurisdiction to try or commit the case for trial, or when another Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate should handle it.
Section 322(2)
This sub-section details the powers of the Magistrate who receives a referred case under Section 322(1). They can either try the case themselves if empowered, assign it to a subordinate Magistrate with jurisdiction, or commit the accused for trial, ensuring the case proceeds appropriately.
Landmark Judgements
Satyanarayan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2009):
The Patna High Court emphasized that Section 322 CrPC imposes a mandatory duty on a Magistrate to stay proceedings and submit the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate if the evidence suggests a lack of jurisdiction or that the case should be tried by a different Magistrate.
Chintamani Behera v. State of Orissa (1999):
The Orissa High Court clarified the scope of Section 322, reiterating that a Magistrate, upon forming a presumption of lacking jurisdiction or the need for trial by another competent court, must follow the prescribed procedure of submitting the case, rather than arbitrarily dismissing it.