The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 04. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3090 of 2024 Malati Majhi ..... Petitioner Basanta Pradhan -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. – Mr. Amit Prasad Bose Opp. Party Represented By Adv. - M/s Pramod Kumar Jena, P. R. Mishra
Decision
ORDER 13.11.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The present application has been filed at the instance of the accused-Petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. thereby invoking inherent power of this Court to quash order dated 23.07.2024 at Annexure-1, passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Balasore in 1CC Case No.108 of 2020, by virtue of which the application filed by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine the Branch Manager, SBI Main Branch, Balasore has been allowed by the learned trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that a complaint case was registered at the instance of the Opp. Page 1 of 5. Party arraigning the present Petitioner as an accused for commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act which was registered as 1CC Case No.108 of 2020. Thereafter, the trial continued. After closure of the evidence from the complainant side, when the defence evidence was being recorded, a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed at the instance of the complainant to examine the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India on 10.05.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, submitted that the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the complainant is devoid of any substance and no reasonable ground has been taken in such petition to support the prayer in such application. He further submitted that such an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant in the midst of recording of the defence evidence was not maintainable. Therefore, it was contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the learned trial Court has committed a gross illegality in allowing such application and, as such, the impugned order dated 23.07.2024 allowing such application is unsustainable in law. 6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-complainant on the other hand contended that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated 23.07.2024. While supporting the impugned order dated 23.07.2024, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Contemnor contended that section 311 of Cr.P.C. confers a power upon the learned trial Court to call any witness at any stage of the inquiry, trial or other proceeding, though not summoned as a witness and recall any witness who has already Page 2 of 5. been examined subject to the condition that the Court shall satisfy itself with regard to the essentiality of such evidence and only after coming to conclusion that such evidence is required for a just decision of the case. By referring to the aforesaid provision under Section 311 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the Opposite Party emphatically argued that in the present case the Branch Manager is a material witness. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature of the dispute involved in the complaint, the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in issuing summons to the said witness for recording of his evidence in the present case, as the evidence of the above noted witness is essential to the just decision of the case. On such ground, learned counsel for the Opposite Party contended that the present application is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same be dismissed. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the Parties, on a careful examination of the background further and on close analysis of the impugned order, this Court found that the learned trial Court, on the application of the complainant, has summoned the Branch Manager of Main Branch as a witness in this case. Admittedly, summoning of such witness was during the recording of evidence of the defence and after closure of the complainant’s evidence. No doubt summoning a complainant’s witness at that stage is likely to cause some prejudice to the accused. However, the same cannot take away the right of the Court to summon a witness whose presence is essential to the just decision in the case. By applying the underlying principles under Section 311 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the considered view that any Court may summon any witness at any stage of the proceeding if Page 3 of 5. such evidence is found to be essential to the just decision of the case. It is also imperative that the learned trial Court is required to give reasons while exercising such discretion vested upon it under Section 311 Cr.P.C. On a close analysis of the order dated 23.07.2024, this Court is of the view though the same is not apply worded and the reason has not been properly explained, however, on a careful analysis of the fact in its entirety and taking into consideration the nature of the witness who have been summoned for recording of evidence, this Court found that there is a justification in summoning such a witness for recording of evidence in a case of this nature. Therefore, this Court is of the view that order dated 23.07.2024 does not call for any interfere by this Court. However, the prejudice caused to the accused by late summoning of the witness needs to be compensated properly. Therefore, the cost imposed by the learned trial Court is enhanced from Rs.200/- to Rs.3,000/-. The complainant shall now pay a cost of Rs.3000/- to the accused within ten days from today. 8. Further, it is directed that the learned trial Court shall examine and record the evidence of the witness summoned vide order dated 23.07.2024 within a period of four weeks and he shall be discharged on the day he is summoned for recording of his evidence after providing ample opportunity to the accused- Petitioner to cross-examine the witness. It is also open to the accused-Petitioner to file his rebuttal to the evidence of the Branch Manager, SBI Main Branch. Taking into consideration the fact that the case is of the year, 2020, it is directed that the learned Magistrate shall make every endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months Page 4 of 5. from today. 9. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands disposed of. Sisir ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 17-Nov-2025 17:21:32 Page 5 of 5.