ORDER :

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since complete format of FIR is of similar irregularities regarding arms license and the allegations form such an act of petitioners, which are in violation of law, therefore, it amounts to similar transactions and the Court may grant indulgence to the extent of consolidation of trial.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it shall be in the interest of justice and in given circumstance the consolidation shall save petitioners from multiplicity of litigation and extraordinary consumption of time during the litigation.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that all the connected cases belong to the District Ganganagar, and that the offences therein are also of a similar nature, and a direction to hear the cases together in the learned Court below would be in the interest of justice, as it would be to the convenience of the concerned authorities and the Court to hear the matters together.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the consolidation.

6. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Ors. (2012) 9 SCC 460 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, with regard to the exercise of a High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, observed asunder:

“The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or proprietary of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the expression 'prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice', the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, proprietary or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section 482 is based upon the maxim quando lex liquid alicuiconcedit, conceder videtur id quo res ipsa esse non protest, i.e., when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The Section confers very wide power on the Court to do justice and to ensure that the process of the Court is not permitted to be abused.

It may be somewhat necessary to have a comparative examination of the powers exercisable by the Court under these two provisions. There may be some overlapping between these two powers because both are aimed at securing the ends of justice and both have an element of discretion. But, at the same time, inherent power under Section 482 of the Code being an extraordinary and residuary power, it is inapplicable in regard to matters which are specifically provided for under other provisions of the Code. To put it simply, normally the court may not invoke its power under Section 482 of the Code where a party could have availed of the remedy available under Section 397 of the Code itself. The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code are of a wide magnitude and are not as limited as the power under Section 397. Section 482 can be invoked where the order in question is neither an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) nor a final order in the strict sense. Reference in this regard can be made to Raj Kapoor and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. MANU/SC/0210/1979 : AIR 1980 SC 258 : (1980) 1 SCC 43]}. In this very case, this Court has observed that inherent power under Section 482 may not be exercised if the bar under Section