JUDGMENT Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioner is the original complainant, and shall hereinafter be referred to as such, for convenience and clarity. He filed a complaint against the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 203 of IPC, Section 323 of IPC, Section 504 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tuljapur. The learned Magistrate, after considering the averments in the complaint and on examining the complainant, issued process against the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein (hereinafter referred to as the accused) requiring them to appear and answer to the charge of the said offences. This order was passed by the learned Magistrate on 01.02.2009. By the same order, the Magistrate erroneously committed 'the complaint' to the Court of Sessions without waiting for appearance of the accused, and without furnishing a copy of the complaint and the statements recorded before issuance of process, etc, as per the requirement of Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code). When the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the Court of Sessions remanded the matter back for compliance with the relevant provisions in the Code regarding the appearance of accused, etc. After remand, the learned Magistrate complied with the relevant provisions and again committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions, by its order dated 16.06.2009, held that the case was not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and sent it back to the learned Magistrate for proceeding therewith in accordance with law. This order was challenged by the original complainant by filing a Writ Petition before this Court, which was allowed and the order dated 16.06.2009 was quashed. This Court directed the matter to be remanded back to the Additional Sessions Judge for deciding that, 'whether the complaint is triable by the Court of Sessions or not'. When the matter, thus, was remanded back to the Court of Sessions, the Additional Sessions Judge, by an elaborate order dated 16.11.2011 observed that the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC was, prima facie, not made out. When the matter, thus, was remanded back to the Court of Sessions, the Additional Sessions Judge, by an elaborate order dated 16.11.2011 observed that the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC was, prima facie, not made out. He thereafter observed that the other offences viz those punishable under Section 203 of IPC, Section 323 of IPC and Section 506 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC were not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Holding so, he remanded the matter back to the Court of learned Magistrate for trial. The original complainant, being aggrieved by this order has approached this Court by filing the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, at length. With their assistance, I have got clarified all the factual aspects of the matter. 4. As aforesaid, process had been issued with respect to the offences punishable under Section 201 of IPC, Section 203 of IPC, Section 323 of IPC, Section 506 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC was alleged to be in relation to the offence of murder. In other words, the allegation was of causing of disappearance of evidence of commission of a capital offence by the accused persons. The dispute arose as to whether the case, as it was, i.e. including the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, or not. This is what this Court had asked the Sessions Court to decide, when it had remanded the matter back to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court while deciding this issue, however, observed that prima facie, no case of offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC made out at all. It is in this view of the matter, that he concluded that the case was not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 5. Though the learned counsel for the respondents attempted to suggest that this conclusion arrived at by the Court of Sessions is proper, I do not wish to go into that aspect of the matter. I am not suggesting for a moment, that there was a case for proceeding against the accused person with respect to an offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. I am not suggesting for a moment, that there was a case for proceeding against the accused person with respect to an offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. Certainly, the Court of Sessions was entitled to consider this aspect of the matter. However, the question is about the propriety of the course adopted by the Court of Sessions. Whether or not, there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused with respect to any of the alleged offences ought to have been considered by the Court of Sessions when stage contemplated under Section 227 and Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would have arisen. In the instant case the matter appeared for the Sessions Court not for considering whether there was basis for framing of charge under Section 201 of IPC. The question that was required to be decided was that whether the case, as it was, disclosed commission of an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, or not. Though the Sessions Court at that stage could have considered the question of sufficiency of grounds for proceeding against the accused with respect to the alleged offences generally, or with respect to a particular offence if he wanted to do so, it should have put the complainant on guard, and should have heard the complainant on this aspect of the matter. The complainant, who apparently, was concentrating, whether the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC would be triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, or not, was obviously taken by surprise. At the cost of repetition, it may be said that if at all the learned Sessions Judge had decided to determine this aspect of the matter, he ought to have given notice to the complainant and to the Public Prosecutor; and ought to have heard them, as to whether or not, there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused with respect to the accusation leveled in the Complaint, which obviously included the accusation with respect to the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC also. 6. The order passed by the Sessions Court is, therefore, not in accordance with law. It has been passed by violating the norms of proper procedure. The same, therefore, needs to be set aside. 7. 6. The order passed by the Sessions Court is, therefore, not in accordance with law. It has been passed by violating the norms of proper procedure. The same, therefore, needs to be set aside. 7. The matter is thus required to be remanded back to the Court of Sessions for a fresh consideration, particularly for deciding whether or not there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused persons with respect to the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC after giving notice to the Public Prosecutor and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the original complainant. 8. The Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, for deciding whether or not, there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused persons, or any of them, with respect to the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC, after giving a notice to the Public Prosecutor and after giving an opportunity of being heard in the matter to the original complainant. 9. The Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms and to the aforesaid extent. 10. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Ordered accordingly.