The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 04. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3707 of 2024 Shankarlal Agrawal ..... Petitioner State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Debi Prasad Dhal, Sr. Adv. Opp. Party Represented By Adv. – Sasmita Nayak, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 09.09.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Sri D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to challenge order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kantabanji in SC No.43 of 2020 of 2010/2016 whereby the learned court has refused to club up the cases which are pending before the learned JMFC, Kantabanji. 4. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submitted that on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged which was registered as Kantabanji P.S. Case No.92 of 2007 dated Page 1 of 5. 21.07.2007 a case was registered for alleged commission of an offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 469, 472, 475, 487, 270, 274, 34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 86 and 87 of the Trade and Merchandise Act as well as Section 63 of the Copyright Act. On the basis of the aforesaid P.S. Case, a G.R. Case was registered. Learned Senior Counsel at this juncture further contended that on the basis of the self-same seizure, 13 complaint cases were filed before the learned JMFC, Kantabanji. On perusal of the complaint it appears that the same has been filed for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 17(c) and 17-B(c), 18(c), 18-A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the rules framed thereunder which are punishable under Section 27(b)(ii), 27(c), 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that the present case as well as the complaint cases which arise out of the self-same seizure are all triable by Sessions Court. Accordingly, the Petitioner moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge for clubbing up all the cases under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. 5. The application filed by the Petitioner under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. was taken up for consideration by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kantabanji and disposed of vide order dated 28.02.2024. Vide order dated 28.02.2024, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kantabanji has rejected the petition of the Petitioner under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. with the prayer for clubbing up all the offences. Being aggrieved by such order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kantabanji, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. Page 2 of 5. 6. On a close scrutiny of the order dated 28.02.2024, this Court observes that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kantabanji, while taking note of the complaint cases, has come to a conclusion that those cases have not been committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned JMFC, Kantabanji. Accordingly, he has come to a conclusion that until and unless the cases have committed to the Court of Sessions that the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kantabanji has no jurisdiction to club up those cases under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. It has also been observed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kantabanji that he has no power to direct the learned JMFC, Kantabanji for transfer of those cases or to direct commitment of those cases to the court of Sessions. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, while supporting the impugned order dated 28.02.2024, contended before this Court that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kantabanji has not committed any illegality while rejecting the application of the Petitioner filed under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. Further, referring to the order dated 28.02.2024 at Annexure-3 to the application, learned counsel for the State contended that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kantabanji has taken note of all the complaint cases and after a careful consideration has come to a conclusion that those cases have not been committed to the court of Sessions. Therefore, it lacks jurisdiction to pass any order on those complaint cases. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kantabanji has acted within the four corners of the Criminal Procedure Code and has not committed any illegality which would call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent Page 3 of 5. jurisdiction. Accordingly, it was prayed that the present application, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further on a close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 28.02.2024, this Court found that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of his application under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. to club several complaint cases along with the present case, which arises out of the common seizure, has approached this Court by filing the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. On a careful analysis of the impugned order dated 28.02.2024, this Court observes that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kantabanji has not committed any illegality in rejecting the petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. This is more so, when the learned court has observed that those complaint cases have not been committed to the court of Sessions. It is settled position of law that unless the cases have committed to the court of Sessions, the court of Sessions has no jurisdiction over those cases and the same have to be tried by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction over such complaint cases. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality in order dated 28.02.2024. Hence, this Court is of the view that the order dated 28.02.2024 does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage. 9. However, before parting, this Court would like to observe that since the complaint cases are pending before the learned JMFC, Kantabanji and the in the event it is found that the same are triable by the court of sessions eventually the same is Page 4 of 5. committed to the Court of Sessions. In the aforesaid context, this Court would like to refer to the provisions contained in Section 223 of the Cr.P.C. which provides for the procedure to be followed by the learned Magistrate for commitment of the cases to the Court of Sessions. Such provision specifically provides that if on an inquiry into an offence or in course of trial, the learned Magistrate is of the opinion that the case is ought to be tried by the court of Sessions, then such Magistrate is not devoid of power to commit such cases to the court of Sessions under the provisions contained in the Cr.P.C. In view of the aforesaid provision, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to approach the learned JMFC, Kantabanji in the pending complaint cases within two weeks from today along with a copy of today’s order. In such eventuality, the learned JMFC, Kantabanji in exercise of his power under Section 223 of the Cr.P.C. shall examine those complaint cases and in the event it is found that no such case is triable by the Court of Sessions, then necessary consequential orders be passed within a period of four weeks thereafter. 10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CRLMC stands disposed of. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Sep-2025 12:30:21