Section 322 CrPC applications require reasoned consideration confined to the jurisdictional issue raised.

The petitioner, Accused No. 1 in C.C. No. 13613/2009, faced charges under Sections 380, 406, 420, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

He applied under Section 322 Cr.P.C., contending that the ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC were absent and, because the trial court was a special court for offences under Sections 403–409 IPC, the case should be submitted to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

The trial court rejected the application on 27 March 2025, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision on 17 September 2025.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 528 BNSS.

During the petition, Accused No. 5 sought leave to intervene and permission to file a similar application

The High Court found that the lower courts had not adequately considered the parties’ submissions and the scope of the Section 322 application.

1. Whether the trial court and revisional court orders rejecting and affirming the rejection of the petitioner’s Section 322 Cr.P.C. application were inadequately reasoned and warranted interference under Article 227

2. Whether the petitioner’s Section 322 application should be reconsidered by the trial court, confined to the alleged Section 406 IPC offence, without the High Court deciding the merits of the parties’ contentions

3. Whether Accused No. 5 should be permitted to apply separately under Section 322 Cr.P.C.

Section 322 Cr.P.C. applies where, during an inquiry or trial, the evidence appears to indicate that the Magistrate lacks jurisdiction, another Magistrate should try or commit the case, or the case should be tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate; the Magistrate must stay proceedings and submit the case with a brief report

The court referred to Shankar Malharrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra, which explains the operation of Sections 322–325 Cr.P.C. and the need for adequate reasons when Section 322 is invoked

The petition invoked Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 BNSS

The High Court did not determine whether Section 406 IPC was made out or resolve the parties’ competing interpretations of Section 322; it required the trial court to reconsider the application in accordance with law

The High Court observed that the trial court had considered all alleged offences, although the petitioner’s Section 322 application concerned Section 406 IPC, and had not adequately addressed the petitioner’s contentions or given cogent reasons for rejecting the application.

It likewise found that the revisional court recorded the parties’ submissions but did not provide adequate reasons for affirming the trial court and had gone beyond the scope of the application by considering all the alleged offences

In light of these deficiencies, the High Court set aside both orders and remitted the application for fresh consideration.

It expressly left all rival contentions open and directed that the Section 322 applications be considered only in relation to Section 406 IPC as against Accused Nos. 1 and 5

The trial court’s order dated 27 March 2025 and the revisional court’s order dated 17 September 2025 were set aside, and the petitioner’s Section 322 application was remitted for fresh consideration.

Accused No. 5 was given liberty to file a similar application, with the State and complainant permitted to file objections.

The trial court was directed to decide the applications within six weeks, confine its consideration to Section 406 IPC as against Accused Nos. 1 and 5, and not be influenced by the findings in the impugned orders.

The High Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the rival contentions