Power to try summarily
Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with power to try summarily. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code- (a) any Chief Judicial Magistrate; The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(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 India Penal Code (45 of 1860), where the value of the property stolen does no 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 Panel 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, 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).
(2) When, in the course of a summary trial it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that it is undesirable to try it summarily, the Magistrate shall recall any witnesses who may have been examined and proceed to re-hear the case in the manner provided by this Code.
Section 260, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 283 Power to try summarily Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
- Cattle-Trespass Act s. 20 Power to make complaints
- s. 379 Appeal against conviction by High Court in certain cases
- s. 380 Special right of appeal in certain cases
- Indian Penal Code s. 411 Dishonestly receiving stolen property
- Indian Penal Code s. 454 Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment
- Indian Penal Code s. 456 Punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night
- Indian Penal Code s. 506 Punishment for criminal intimidation
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Securities and Exchange Board of India vs S. K. Shelgikar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a special statute expressly or by necessary implication divests lower courts of jurisdiction and vests it in higher courts through amendment, such amendment operates retrospectively to all pending matters, including those where offences were committed before the amendment and proceedings initiated before the amendment, unless the amendment itself expressly provides otherwise. The change of forum in such cases is not merely procedural but is mandated by express statutory language, and no person has a vested right to be tried by a particular forum once proceedings have been initiated. The legislative intent for retrospective application can be inferred from express language divesting jurisdiction from lower courts and vesting it exclusively in higher courts, as evidenced by phrases such as 'No court inferior to that of a Court of Session shall try any offence' and 'all offences committed prior to or after the date of commencement shall be tried by Special Court.'
On this section: Examined whether summary trial procedure available for Magistrate courts applies to SEBI offences; held not applicable as SEBI Act does not expressly provide for summary trial
-
Sri Debojit Das vs Sri Manoj Saraf& ORS.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In proceedings under the Negotiable Instrument Act, a trial court cannot dismiss a complaint based on documents submitted by the accused without formally recording evidence and examining witnesses. Even in summary trials under Section 260 Cr.P.C., the procedure for recording evidence mandated by Section 262 Cr.P.C. must be followed. Factual allegations regarding the issuance of cheques, the existence of legally enforceable debt, and the absence of business transactions must be established through evidence, not through unexamined documents submitted with the petition. The trial court must proceed with the hearing and consider materials produced during the course of evidence before deciding the case.
On this section: Section 260 provides for summary trial procedure in certain cases. The respondent's counsel argued that NI Act cases can be tried summarily under this section. The court held that Section 260 cannot be read in isolation and must be read with Section 262.
-
Tanaji Dinkar Wadakar vs Veer Chaphekar Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The non-obstante clause in Section 143(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 confers independent jurisdiction on a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class to conduct summary trials of offences under Chapter XVII of the Act without requiring special empowerment by the High Court under Section 260(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The second proviso to Section 143(1) permitting conversion to warrant trial can only be invoked when it appears that imprisonment exceeding one year may be imposed or for other reasons it is undesirable to try summarily, and such order must be passed after hearing the parties and recording reasons. At the pre-trial stage, absent such circumstances, a Magistrate is justified in rejecting an application for warrant trial.
On this section: Requires special empowerment by High Court for Magistrate to conduct summary trials; court held this is overridden by Section 143 NI Act
-
Jiyaul Haq Alias Jamshed vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which are summary proceedings governed by Sections 262-265 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the provisions of Section 258 CrPC (which provides for stopping proceedings in certain cases and applies only to summon cases trial under Chapter XX of CrPC) are not applicable. Consequently, an accused cannot be discharged from a Section 138 NI Act proceeding merely on the ground of partial repayment of the cheque amount, as Chapter XXI of CrPC (Summary Trial) contains no provision to stop the summary trial or discharge the accused.
On this section: Deals with summary trial; distinguished from Chapter XX (Summon Cases) to establish that different procedural rules apply
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… be tried under Chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure as 'warrant cases' or under Chapter XX as 'summons cases' in view of the quantum of maximum imprisonment prescribed (of three years and one year respectively). The 'forum' of trial for both the aforesaid was the same. It was sought to be emphasized, that Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not in Chapter XIX or XX but under Chapter XXI. The application of Section 260 according to the learned Additional Solicitor General, is discretionary, and no right is vested in the acused to be tried summarily. And therefore, no right is vested in an accused to claim a summary …
-
… be tried under Chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure as 'warrant cases' or under Chapter XX as 'summons cases' in view of the quantum of maximum imprisonment prescribed (of three years and one year respectively). The 'forum' of trial for both the aforesaid was the same. It was sought to be emphasized, that Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not in Chapter XIX or XX but under Chapter XXI. The application of Section 260 according to the learned Additional Solicitor General, is discretionary, and no right is vested in the acused to be tried summarily. And therefore, no right is vested in an accused to claim a summary …
Questions about Section 260
What have the courts held on Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Securities and Exchange Board of India vs S. K. Shelgikar (21 Aug 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Examined whether summary trial procedure available for Magistrate courts applies to SEBI offences; held not applicable as SEBI Act does not expressly provide for summary trial. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 260, section 260 CRPC, section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Securities and Exchange Board of India vs S. K. Shelgikar (21 Aug 2017).
What should I read with Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Cattle-Trespass Act 20 (Power to make complaints), section 379 (Appeal against conviction by High Court in certain cases), section 380 (Special right of appeal in certain cases), Indian Penal Code 411 (Dishonestly receiving stolen property), and on 3 further provisions, so none of them can safely be read on its own. 3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 283 (Power to try summarily), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 260, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.