ORDER K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. - This revision has been filed by the petitioners alleging that they have been called upon to stand their trial in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1992 pending in the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara for the offences punishable Under Sections 326, 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to Rajkanika P. S. Case No. 68 of 1991 and G.R. Case No. 683 of 1991 of the Court of the SDJM, Kendrapara. Another counter complaint case from the side of the accused persons bearing ICC Case No. 24 of 1993 is now pending in the Court of the SDJM, Kendrapara which is fixed to 23-2-1993 lor inquiry u/s 202, Cr PC. 2. The allegation of the petitioners is that since the law is well settled that the case and the counter case should be heard simult- aneously, it would cause great prejudice to them if the ST No. 2 of 1992 would proceed much in advance and the hearing of the complaint case is delayed. Though a petition was filed before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara to differ the trial of the sessions case awaiting result of the inquiry in the complaint case referred to above, the same had been rejected by the Addl. Sessions Judge on 9-2-1993 on the ground that the cognizance has not been taken in the complaint case to hold that there is a counter case to the sessions trial and it cannot be said that counter case exists and therefore there is no ground for deferring the trial of the Sessions trial which is fixed to 15-2-1993. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that cognizance has already been taken in the complaint case and also has filed an affidavit in the Court indicating that the Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the offence mentioned in the complaint petition. 3. It is true that materials in one case cannot be referred to in the counter case which has been so held by this Court in a case reported in Sashi Behera Vs. State of Orissa and etc., .But the law is well settled that when there is a complaint or counter complaint giving rise to a case and counter case, they should be tried by the same Judge in quick succession. State of Orissa and etc., .But the law is well settled that when there is a complaint or counter complaint giving rise to a case and counter case, they should be tried by the same Judge in quick succession. After the first case is heard, the judgment should be reserved until the second case is heard and the Judge should consider the whole case and deliver the judgments and if one case is committed to the Court of Session, the other case should simultaneously be committed to the Court of Session. (Reference may be made to the decision of this Court reported in Netra Parida Vs. The State and Others. It is also the view taken by various Courts in India which includes the case reported in Ramchand Vs. Joginder Singh and Others. This being the position of law, in the interest of justice, the Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1992 and the counter case referrred to above, should be heard separately in quick succession if at all cognizance has already been taken after inquiry u/s 202, Cr PC and no order of dismissal is recorded u/s 203, Cr PC. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order dated 9-2-1993 and direct that the hearing of the complaint case ICC No. 24 of 1993 in the Court of the SDJM, Kendrapara be taken up expeditiously and completed within a period of two months i.e. by 19th April, 1993 and necessary orders be passed in accordance with law and till then hearing of the S.T. No. 2 of 1992 pending in the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge. Kendrapara is stayed. 4. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal revision is disposed of. 5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted in course of the day, if applied for.