CRLMC/3037/2026 of MADHUSUDAN BEHERA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 1 September 2026

ORDER

01.09.2026 Order No.

01.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein and the grounds taken.

3. The accused-Petitioner in S.T. Case No.01 of 2024, pending before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Basudevpur which arises out of Basudevpur P.S. Case No. 354 of 20.06.2023 registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 354, 379, 506 read with 34 of IPC has approached this Court with a prayer to quash order dated 05.08.2026 at Annexure-1 passed by the learned Magistrate on an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in the above- noted Basudevpur P.S. case for commission of the alleged offences as indicated hereinabove. On the basis of the FIR, S.T. Case No.1 of 2024 was commenced. While the evidence from the side of the prosecution was being laid, the I.O was examined as P.W.-10 and discharged on 07.04.2026, however, the defence could not ask certain relevant questions to the I.O. which are pertinent for a just decision of the case. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, referring to the provision contained under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., submitted before this Court that an application was filed on behalf of the accused with a prayer to recall P.W. No.10, the I.O. of the case, for his further cross-examination. He has also attached a schedule of questionnaire containing questions likely to be asked to the I.O.

5. Such petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. having been rejected vide order dated 05.08.2026, apparently on the ground that the same has been filed only to cause delay in the trial, the Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of such order dated 05.08.2026 at Annexure-1. While assailing the order dated 05.08.2026 at Annexure-1, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the learned trial court has not taken note of the questionnaire that was filed or the relevance of the questions included therein. He further contended that it is a constitutional guarantee to every citizen that they will get a fair trial. Accordingly, relevant provisions have been made in the Cr.P.C. (now, in the BNSS) to provide a fair opportunity to the accused to put forth his case to the best of his ability. Specifically, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C a provision has been laid down conferring a right on the accused to recall, re-examine or further cross-examine any witnesses, if the same is required for a just decision in the case. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that although a questionnaire was prepared indicating the relevance of such question in the trial, the learned trial court, without dealing with such questionnaire in its proper perspective, has rejected the application of the Petitioner by passing innocuous order by recording the submission of the prosecution that such application has been filed only to delay the trial. It was also observed that in the event P.W. No.10 is recalled, the same will not be fruitful.

6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing order dated 05.08.2026. He further submitted that after due examination of the application and further taking note of the objection filed by the prosecution, the learned trial court has rejected the application vide order dated 05.08.2026. As such, it was stated that such order of rejection dated 05.08.2026 doesn't call for any interference by this Court, at this stage.

7. Having considered the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels appearing for both sides and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record, further on a close scrutiny of order dated 05.08.2026, this Court observes that the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the questionnaire filed along with the application of the Petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The application of the Petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the same would cause delay in conclusion of the trial. It is further made clear that such ground of delay in trial is not a relevant ground while considering an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The Court/Magistrate, while considering the application to recall any witness is required to examine such application on its own merit and to see whether such further examination for recall of the witness is necessary for a just decision of the case. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 05.08.2026 is unsustainable in law and, accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to reconsider the application of the Petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, at Annexure-3 and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of six weeks from the date the Petitioner appear before the learned trial Court along with a copy of today’s order within one week from today.

8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CRLMC application stands disposed of.

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

Judge

S.K. Rout

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Sep-2026 19:09:14 Signature Not Verified