CRLMC/2249/2026 of CHHAYAMANI DAS Vs KALPANA SAHU on 18 August 2026

ORDER

18.08.2026 Order No.

02.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. The accused in 1.C.C Case No.15 of 2023 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Betnoti, which was instituted for alleging commission of an offense punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, has approached this Court thereby challenging order dated 20.05.2026 at Annexure-4 passed by the learned Magistrate, rejecting the Petitioner’s prayer under Section 348 of the BNSS to recall the P.W.1-complainant for her further cross-examination.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that initially the complainant-opposite party filed an application under Section 348 of the BNSS during trial to recall P.W.1 for her further cross-examination. Such application was admittedly filed after closure of the evidence from the complainant side. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the application under Section 348 of the BNSS at Annexure-3 submitted before this Court that such application has been filed along with a set of questionnaires. He further submitted that unless the Petitioner is permitted to recall P.W.1 and subject P.W.1 to further cross-examination, the same would likely to cause prejudice to the accused-Petitioner. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the learned trial court has committed a gross error by rejecting his prayer to recall P.W.1 for her further cross-examination.

5. On perusal of order dated 20.05.2026, which has been assailed in the present application, this Court found that the learned Magistrate has disposed of the application of the Petitioner under Section 348 of the BNSS by passing reasoned order. While rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner, the learned trial court has observed that adequate opportunity was granted to the accused to cross-examine P.W.1, and that in the meantime, the evidence from the complainant side has been closed. Moreover, the petition filed by the Petitioner does not disclose any exceptional circumstance or any subsequent development which would necessitate recall of such witness. It has also been observed that mere omission or failure on the part of defence to put certain questions during cross- examination cannot be a ground to recall any witness. Accordingly, the prayer of the accused-Petitioner to recall P.W.1 has been rejected by the learned trial court.

6. On a careful analysis of the impugned order dated

20.02.2026 at Annexure-4, this Court found that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality. Moreover, this Court also examined the questionnaire that has been appended to the application of the Petitioner under Section 348 of the BNSS at Annexure-3. The questions which are likely to be asked to the P.W.1 on her recall are not relevant questions. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.05.2026. However taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, he is granted another opportunity to file a better questionnaire with a prayer to recall P.W.1. In the event any such application is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merit by the learned Magistrate.

7. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CRLMC application stands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra )

Judge

Anil

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 19-Aug-2026 19:39:14 Signature Not Verified