The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 04. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4710 of 2025 Pradyumna Pallei @ Pradyumna Palai ..... Petitioner State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Jyotirmaya Sahoo Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – Miss B.K. Sahu, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 09.12.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned 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., which corresponds to Section 528 of the BNSS, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court to quash the impugned order dated 03.11.2025 as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Tangi P.S. Case No.173 of 2024 which corresponds to G.R. Case No.165 of 2024 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Chilika. The
Facts
above noted case was registered on the basis of the FIR Page 1 of 9. lodged at Tangi P.S. registered as FIR No. 173 dated 23.02.2024 for alleged commissioner of offence punishable under Section 3 of the Orissa Prevention of Gambling Act, 1955. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that being aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Chilika thereby rejecting the petition filed by the Petitioner for compounding of the offence alleged the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. He further submitted that the above noted FIR was lodged implicating the Petitioner as an accused along with arose. He further submitted that the above noted FIR was lodged implicating the Petitioner as an accused along with others. He further submitted that after conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet has also been filed for commission of an offence under Section 3 of the O.P.G. Act, 1955 against the present Petitioner as well as the other accused persons. 5. He further contended that so far as the present Petitioner is concerned, he filed an application before the learned trial Court under Section 206 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to allow the petition since the accused is residing outside the State of Odisha. He further submitted that earlier the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing CRLMC No.4293 of 2025 which was disposed of by order dated 22.10.2025 with observation that in the event the Petitioner files an application Page 2 of 9. under Section 206 of the Cr.P.C, thereby admitting the offence, the Petitioner was granted liberty to move such an application within two weeks from the date of the order i.e. 22.10.2025 and, in such eventuality, the learned trial Court was directed to consider such application in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter by taking into consideration, the nature and gravity of the offence as well as the maximum punishment that can be imposed. 6. In view of the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 22.10.2025, the Petitioner moved the learned trial Court by filing an application under Section 206 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Petitioner pleaded guilty and such application was taken up for consideration by the learned trial Court on 03.11.2025. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for both sides, the learned trial Court rejected the application of the Petitioner holding that such application is not maintainable in law. In order to justify that the application is not maintainable, the learned trial Court has observed that Section 206(2) of Cr.P.C. defines petty offences as any offence punishable only with fine not exceeding Rs.1000/- but does not include an offence punishable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or any other law which provides for convicting the accused persons in his absence on a plea of guilty and the punishment so prescribed is imprisonment which may extent to one month or with fine which may extent to Rs.100/- or with both accordingly, the Page 3 of 9. learned trial Court has come to a conclusion that offence punishable under Section 3 of the O.P.G. Act, 1955 is not a petty offence. Hence it has been held that such application filed by the Petitioner under Section 206 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. 7. While assailing the aforesaid order dated 03.11.2025, learned counsel for the Petitioner filed a copy of gazette notification dated 19.07.2000. On perusal of the gazette notification dated 19.07.2000, which has been issued under Section 13 of the Cr.P.C. by the High Court of Orissa, a “petty offence” has been defined in clause-2 (1)(e) of the said gazette notification. For better understanding, the provision contained in clause 2(1)(e) is quoted herein below: “(2)(1)(e)“Petty Offences” means offences under- (i) the sections listed in the Tables under Section 320 of the Code excluding the offences under Sections 324, 325, 335, 344, 357, 379, 381 406, 407, 408, 411, 414, 418, 419, 420, 429, 430, 451 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; (ii) sections 160, 188, 279, 294 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code; and (iii) all offences under any Act which are punishable up to 2 years’ imprisonment;” Further, specifically referring to clause-2(1)(e)(iii)
Legal Reasoning
Court. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the gazette notification dated 19th July, 2000 has not been issued under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the same is not applicable to the cases involving Petty offences. Therefore, the question which falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the offence under Section 3 of O.P.G. Act is a Petty offence and whether the same can be tried under Section 206 of the Cr.P.C. 10. On a careful analysis of the gazette notification relied upon by the Petitioner and referred to by the learned counsel for the State, there is no dispute that the offence under Section 3 of the O.P.G. Act is a Petty offence. So far as Section 206 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, it prescribes that cases involving in Petty offence shall be tried by following a summary procedure as prescribed in Section 260 of the Cr.P.C except in instances where the Magistrate is of a contrary opinion, reasons for which are to be recorded in writing, by issuing summons to the accused to face the trial. In view of the provision contained in sub-Section (2) of Section 206 of Cr.P.C., offences which are petty in nature under a different penal statute shall be treated as Petty offences for the purpose of Section 206 of Cr.P.C whenever the same provides for convicting the accused person in his absence on a plea of guilty. Further in the event cases involving in Petty offences qualifies in the aforesaid two case, then sub-Section (3) of Section 206 Cr.P.C. confer power on the Magistrate to Page 7 of 9. exercise of power under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. to compound the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or with fine or both, where the Magistrate is of the opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the imposition of fine only would meet the ends of justice. 11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case and considering the impugned order dated 03.11.2025 in the aforesaid touchstone, this Court observed that the learned trial Court considered the application of the Petitioner under Section 206 of the Cr.P.C. pursuant to the order passed by this Court in CRLMC No.4239 of 2025. However it has come to a conclusion that the application is not maintainable. Therefore, the question here is that it is not a case that the Magistrate has exercised its power under Section 206(i) and has taken a contrary view by giving any reasons, rather the learned Magistrate has held that the application is not maintainable. So far the maintainability of the application is concerned, this Court is convinced that the offence alleged is definitely a Petty offence in view of the gazette notification dated 19th July, 2000 which was published in the official gazette notification dated 7th September, 2000. Moreover, the offences under the O.P.G. Act are to be tired under the Cr.P.C. and there is no such specific provision in the O.P.G. Act which creates an embargo for convicting the accused persons in his absence on plea of guilty. Page 8 of 9. 12. In the aforesaid background, this Court is of the view that there is no bar to entertain the application of the Petitioner under Section 206 of the Cr.P.C. Thus the learned Magistrate has committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that the application filed at the instance of the Petitioner is not maintainable. Since this Court has held that the offence alleged, that is punishable under Section 3 of the O.P.G. Act, to be a petty offence, the same is required to be considered by the learned Magistrate in terms of Section 206 of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, this Court has specifically held that such application at the instance of the Petitioner involving offence under Section 3 of the O.P.G. Act can very well be considered under Section 206 of the Cr.P.C. 13. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court set aside the order dated 03.11.2025 and remands the matter back to the learned trial Court to consider as to whether the Petitioner can be given the benefit under sub-section (3) of Section 206 of the Cr.P.C. Let the application of the Petitioner under Section 206 of the Cr.P.C. be considered strictly in terms of sub- section (3) thereof within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a copy of todays’ order. 14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
Arguments
learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that all offences under any Act which are punishable up to two years of imprisonment are to be construed as Petty offence. Thus it Page 4 of 9. was argued the word “petty offence” used in section 206 shall also include offences under any other Act which have tried buy following the procedure prescribed in the Cr.P.C. and other penal statutes prescribing punishment up to two years of imprisonment. In view of the aforesaid gazette notification dated 19th July, 2000, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the offence under Section 3 of the O.P.G. Act, which prescribes for a maximum punishment of one month and a fine up to Rs.100/- or both comes within the definition of Petty offences for the purpose of Section 206 of the Cr.P.C. In view of the aforesaid legal provision, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the learned trial Court has committed an illegality by rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner under Section 206 of the Cr.P.C. 8. Learned counsel for the State on the basis of the instruction provided by the IIC, Tangi Police Station, vide his letter dated 07.12.2025, stated before this Court that Section 3 of the O.P.G. Act comes within the classification of the Petty offence as has been provided in clause-2(i)(e)(iii) of the gazette notification dated 19th July, 2000 which was published in the Official Gazette on 7th September, 2000. She further contended that in view of Section 206 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate trying of a Petty offence shall follow the summary procedure as prescribed under Section 260 of the Cr.P.C. except where, for reasons to be recorded in writing of a contrary opinion, a summons may be issued to the accused Page 5 of 9. requiring him either to appear in person or by a pleader before learned Magistrate on a specified date. Moreover, sub-Section (2) of Section 206 of Cr.P.C provides that the Petty offences for the purpose of Section 206 of Cr.P.C, does not include the offences under the Motor Vehicles Act or under any other law which provides for convicting the accused person in his absence on a plea of guilty. In view of aforesaid legal position, learned counsel for the State contended that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioner vide order dated 03.11.2025. As such, the learned counsel for the State contended that the present application, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 9. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the Parties, this Court on a close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 03.11.2025 observes that the Petitioner has called into question the said order on the ground that the learned trial Court has erroneously held that the application filed at the instance of the Petitioner is not maintainable in law. As has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, it is an indisputable fact that the offence under Section 3 of O.P.G. Act, which prescribes punishment of imprisonment for one month or with fine which may extent to 100 rupees or with both, can very well be classified as a Petty offence in terms of the gazette notification dated 19th July, 2000. Such gazette notification has been published in exercise Page 6 of 9. of the power under Section 13 of the Cr.P.C. by this Hon’ble
Decision
CRLMC application stands disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Sisir Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 16-Dec-2025 15:43:32 ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 9 of 9.