The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.654 of 2025 Bibhisan Nag …. Petitioner Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate -Versus- Himanchal Sahu & another …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate for O.P. No.1 CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 23.10.2025 Order No. 02. 1.
Legal Reasoning
time line has been fixed by this Court in CRLMC No.5208 of 2023 for disposal of the complaint case and it has been extended till the end of December, 2025, hence, any such request for further cross-examination of opposite party No.1 and such other demands of the petitioner should not be entertained as it could further delay such disposal. The Page 2 of 5 submission is that the impugned order at Annexure-1 series is perfectly justified and hence, it calls for no interference. 5. In course of hearing, it is claimed by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner that the conducting counsel for the petitioner was engaged pursuant to the order dated 25th August, 2025 of the learned court below, whereafter, the applications as per Annexture-4 series were filed requesting recall of opposite party No.1for further cross-examination with demands made. 6. Perused the impugned order as at Annexure-1 series and on a reading of the same, it is made to understand that the applications have been rejected on the premise that the presumption of alleged cheque is rebuttal in nature and for the said purpose, the petitioner should not be allowed to collect evidence with the assistance of the Court. The certified copies of the depositions of witnesses including opposite party No.1 are produced in Court today during and in course of hearing, referring to which, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties claimed to have had an agreement. The Court finds existence of an agreement between the petitioner and opposite party No.1 to have been revealed. In fact, opposite party No.1 examined as P.W.1 admitted about such agreement between him and the petitioner. The financial capacity of opposite party No.1 has been questioned by the petitioner with a claim that the alleged cheque is said to have been issued in favour of opposite party No.1 in such capacity. Furthermore, it reveals that opposite party No.1 claimed to have filed IT Page 3 of 5 Returns. According to opposite party No.1 as P.W.1, he has been filling the IT Returns for five years from then. The claim of the petitioner is that opposite party No.1 as such did not have means to provide a hand loan of Rs.15 lac, even though, the cheque in question has been issued by the petitioner but the signature therein has been questioned and while claiming so, Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for him refers to the copies of the depositions of all the witnesses including one Lalit Mohan Sahu examined as P.W.2. Considering the nature of evidence received and upon examination of the same, the Court is of the view that opposite party No.1 is required to be recalled for further cross-examination in terms of Section 311 Cr.P.C. Without any elaborate discussion of the evidence on record, the Court is of the conclusion that instead of demanding opposite party No.1 to furnish any such documents with regard to IT Returns and the need for sending the alleged cheque to any Handwriting Expert for scientific examination, recall of opposite party No.1 for the purpose of cross-examination is only to be allowed. In other words, the Court is of the view that only upon such cross-examination, other aspects with regard to the signature on the alleged cheque, whether to be genuine or otherwise etc. may be ascertained and hence, there is no need for any such sending to the same for a scientific examination as has been pleaded by the petitioner. The Court is, hence, of the final conclusion that at present with the cross-examination of opposite party No.1 examined and discharged as P.W.1 would suffice and for that matter, the learned court below should have Page 4 of 5 allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall compensating him with a cost on account of such recall. Even though, there has been a target fixed in CRLMC No.5208 of 2023 and it has been extended, the Court is of the view that such recall and further cross-examination of opposite party No.1 is necessary in the interest of justice but required to be accomplished within the stipulated period extended up to 31st December, 2025. 7. 8. Hence, it is ordered. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed in part. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 25th August, 2025 at Annexure-1 in 1.C.C. Case No. 07 of 2021 is hereby set aside to the extent as aforesaid with a direction to the learned S.D.J.M., Titilagarh to summon opposite party No.1 and to conclude the further cross-examination on a single date without adjournment and thereafter to proceed to dispose of the complaint in 1.C.C. Case No. 07 of 2021 within the time stipulated by the Court’s order in CRLMC No.5208 of 2023. It is further directed that the above order shall be given effect to provided a cost of Rs.1000/- is paid to opposite party No.1 before commencement of his examination on the date fixed. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. Balaram Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 24-Oct-2025 10:50:30 (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Page 5 of 5
Arguments
Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order at Annexure-1 dated 25th August, 2025 passed in connection with 1.C.C. Case No.07 of 2021 by the learned S.D.J.M., Titilagarh on the grounds stated. 3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the applications as at Annexure-4 series were filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the complainant, namely, opposite party No.1 for further cross-examination in terms of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and also to direct him to cause production of the relevant documents in exercise of power under Section 91 Cr.P.C besides sending the cheque in question for scientific examination by Handwriting Expert before for being received as evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act but it has not been allowed, rather, dismissed by a common order i.e. Page 1 of 5 Annexure-1 series. The further submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel is that such recall of opposite party No.1 is absolutely necessary and in the interest of justice. In support of such contention, Mr. Das, learned counsel cited the following decisions, such as, Natasha Singh Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) (2013) 5 SCC 741 and Manju Devi Vrs. State of Rajasthan and another (2019) 6 SCC 203. The contention is that recall of opposite party No.1 is required for a just decision apart from demanding production of the IT documents to ascertain his financial capacity at the relevant point of time and sending the alleged cheque for examination by a Handwriting Expert since the signature therein has been disputed. The further contention is that instead of considering the above plea of the petitioner and the application filed demanding further cross-examination of opposite party No.1, it has been followed by the impugned order at Annexure-1 series, which is, therefore, liable to be interfered with and set aside. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the contention of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and justifies the impugned order at Annexure-1 series with the submission that a