CRLMC/3051/2026 of RASHMI RANJAN ROUTRAY Vs ITISHREE BARIK 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 Petitioner. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the grounds taken therein and the prayer made.

3. By filing the present application under Section 528 of BNSS the accused in 1CC Case No.5 of 2025, pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Anandapur has approached this Court challenging order dated 09.07.2026 passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application of the Petitioner filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to recall the complainant-P.W.-1 for further cross- examination.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that initially the complainant filed the complaint petition alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Thereafter, the matter was sent to trial. The complainant, PW-1 was cross-examined. He further submitted that since the accused- Petitioner didn’t have the relevant documents, the cross-examination from the side of the complainant was declined. Thereafter, the complainant, PW-1 was examined and discharged in December, 2025. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that the complainant has not been cross-examined at all by the Accused-Petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the accused-Petitioner would be seriously prejudiced in the event he is not provided with an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. He further submitted that after the complainant was discharged, the accused-Petitioner collected the documents and, on verification of such documents, the conducting counsel found that unless the complainant is cross- examined on such documents, the same would cause serious prejudice to the accused-Petitioner. Accordingly, the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, by virtue of the impugned order dated 09.07.2026, has rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for recall and further cross-examination of the complainant on the ground that the Petitioner has not disclosed the documents and the nature of questions likely to be asked to the complainant. It has also been observed that initially the accused had declined to cross-examine the complainant when his examination-in-chief was being recorded.

5. This Court, on a careful consideration of the background facts as well as the documents on record, on a close scrutiny of the petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and the impugned order dated

09.07.2026 at Annexure-3, is of the view that unless the Petitioner is given an opportunity to recall and cross-examine the complainant, the same would cause serious prejudice. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to allow this application with a direction to the learned trial court to recall the complainant for his cross- examination subject to the Petitioner paying a cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant. It is further directed that the complainant shall be recalled for cross-examination within a period of four weeks and he shall be cross-examined and discharged on the very same day. Since this order is being passed in the absence of the complainant, liberty is granted to the complainant to seek for modification/variation of this order in the event it is found that the Petitioner has suppressed any material information or misled this Court in any manner.

6. 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 19:09:15 Signature Not Verified