JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 11.10.2002 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in G.R. Case No.1813 of 2002 taking cognizance of offence under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of the Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Case of the prosecution is that sister of the informant had married one Banoj Kumar Khuntia on 13.11.1995. The petitioner is the sister of said Banoj Kumar Khuntia. Further case of the prosecution is that at the time of marriage gold/silver orna¬ments/utensils/house-hold articles and cash of rupees fifty thousand were given for purchase of a motor-cycle. After marriage it is alleged that further demand of cash was made and father of the informant not being in a position to comply with the demand, deceased was tortured. It is also alleged that due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand, the deceased was set fire by pour¬ing kerosene. She was admitted to the Kalinga Hospital, Bhubanes¬war with burn injuries. On the above allegations, a case under Sections 498-A/307/34 of the Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act had been registered against four ac¬cused persons. Subsequently, during her treatment in the Kalinga Hospital the deceased made a dying declaration and ultimately succumbed to the injuries sustained. The case was therefore again registered for commission of offence under Sections 498-A/304-B/302/34 of the Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted for commission of the offences against three accused persons namely Banoj Kumar Khuntia (husband of the deceased), Sulochana Khuntia (mother-in-law of the deceased) and Sarat Kumar Khuntia (father-in-law of the deceased). However, no charge-sheet was submitted so far as the petitioner is concerned. Learned Magis¬trate while taking cognizance found prima facie materials avail¬able against the petitioner and accordingly took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner in the impugned order. 3. However, no charge-sheet was submitted so far as the petitioner is concerned. Learned Magis¬trate while taking cognizance found prima facie materials avail¬able against the petitioner and accordingly took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner in the impugned order. 3. Shri Pani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the legality of the order solely on the ground that when the offence is triable by a Court of Session, if no charge-sheet is filed against a particular accused the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to add accused persons at the time of taking cognizance and only during trial the trial Court can take cognizance under Section 319 Cr.P.C. provided evidence is led before the Court to show involvement of some other accused persons who had not been charge-sheeted. 4. The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kishore Prasad -v- State of Bihar and another, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1931 ; Ranjit Singh -v- State of Punjab, reported in (1998) 15 OCR (SC) 476; and Kishori Singh and others -v- State of Bihar and another, reported in (2000) 19 OCR (SC) 647 held that when an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session is alleged to have been committed and the matter is investigated, the Magistrate has to go by the persons named in the charge-sheet and not to add or subtract the list having no jurisdiction in that respect. Follow¬ing the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, this Court in the case of Bhinga Rana -v- State of Orissa, reported in 2002 (I) OLR 155 held that the scope of interference by the cognizance taking Magistrate in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session is limited to the extent that he is to go by the charge-sheet whereas in other case the Magistrate has absolute jurisdiction to add to the list of accused persons. The Apex Court in the case of M/s. SWIL Ltd. -v- State of Delhi and another, reported in AIR 2001 S.C. 2747 took a contrary view and held that persons who have not been charge-sheeted can also be summoned at the stage of taking cognizance under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in the said case held that since at the stage of taking cogni¬zance of an offence Magistrate can ascertain from statement of witnesses examined by Investigating Officer as to who the offend¬ers really are, there is no need to wait till the stage when Section 319 Cr.P.C. could be invoked. The learned Magistrate on perusal of the records if satisfied can also summon those persons who have not been charge-sheeted. The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court was also brought to the notice of this Court in the case of Bhinga Rana -v- State of Orissa (supra). This Court distinguished the decision of the Apex Court as offences alleged in the case of M/s. SWIL Ltd. -v- State of Delhi (supra) were all triable by Magistrate and no offence had been alleged which is triable by Court of Session. Though the question appeared to be almost settled in view of the decisions of the Apex Court as stated earlier, again a contrary view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Prasad -v- Bashir and others, reported in (2002) 23 OCR (SC) 404. In the said case, charge-sheet was submitted for commission of offences which were triable by a Magistrate. The learned Magistrate while taking cognizance not only took cognizance of offence under Section 395 of the Penal Code but also added four accused persons who had not been charge-sheeted on the basis of an application filed by the informant. The Apex Court in the said decision held that the Magistrate has power under Section 190 Cr.P.C. not only to add offences but also new accused persons on the basis of the evidence collected by the police. 5. Decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. SWIL Ltd. -v- Stated of Delhi (supra) could be distinguished on the ground that the offences triable in that case were by a Magistrate and therefore the question involved in this case did not arise for consideration. 5. Decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. SWIL Ltd. -v- Stated of Delhi (supra) could be distinguished on the ground that the offences triable in that case were by a Magistrate and therefore the question involved in this case did not arise for consideration. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Prasad - Bashir and others (supra), I am of the view that the question raised before this Court requires to be adjudicated by a Larger Bench. 6. It is, therefore, desirable to place this matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for placing the same before a Larger Bench for adjudication and it is directed accordingly. The inter¬im order dated 12.12.2003 passed in Misc.Case No.2840 of 2003 shall continue until further order. Referred to Larger Bench.