The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4191 of 2025 State Of Odisha ..... Petitioner Susanta Kumar Dhalasamant ..... -versus- Represented By Adv. - Partha Sarathi Nayak, A.g.a. Opposite Party Represented By Adv. -
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 15.10.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. P.S.Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Petitioner. Since no notice has not been issued to the Opposite Parties, none appears on behalf of the Opposite Parties. 3. Further at the outset this Court makes it clear this Court does not propose to interfere with the interim order dated 20.08.2025. Therefore, notice to the Opposite Party is waived at this stage. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the present application has been filed by invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Page 1 of 5. which corresponds to Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. to challenge the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No.186 of 2018 which corresponds to Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.172 of 2009. By virtue of the interim order dated 20.08.2025, the learned trial court has rejected the prayer of the prosecution to summon 26 new witnesses which were initially not there in the list of witnesses that was submitted, before the commencement of the trial from the side of the prosecution. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that in view of the provisions contained under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., it is open to the parties to make a prayer before the Court at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings before the Court, to summon any person as witness or to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined and accordingly, the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if such evidence appears to be essential to arrive at a just decision of the case. By referring to the aforesaid provision Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the examination of the abovenoted witnesses are essential for the just decision of the case. 6. Accordingly, a prayer was made before the learned trial court by moving an application on 29.07.2025. The said application has been filed under Annexure-6 to the present Page 2 of 5. application. The learned trial court upon considering the said application, rejected the prayer of the prosecution to summon 26 new witnesses vide impugned order dated 20.08.2025. According to learned Additional Government Advocate representing the prosecution, such rejection order is illegal and arbitrary and not in conformity with the principle underlying Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the prosecution is seriously prejudiced by virtue of the impugned order and hence it was stated that the aforesaid order be set aside and the learned trial court be directed to summon those 26 witnesses whose name have been indicated in the application at Annexure-6. 7. The order dated 20.08.2025 has been assailed in the present application, to test its validity, this Court is required to examine the application that has been filed at the instance of the prosecution on 29.07.2025 at Anenxure-6. It would be pertinent to quote the entire application filed by the prosecution to adjudicate the issue involved in the present application. The same is quoted herein below- “That, the prosecution has already examined 30 numbers of witnesses in this case The rest 31 numbers of witnesses have to be examined in this case. Now, the prosecution has filed 25 numbers of the list of witnesses to examine in this case. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa has passed an order to comply the direction of Apex Court in S.L.P. Criminal No. 17256 of 2024 with some conditions. Out of which Page 3 of 5. the condition no. 2 "out of remaining witnesses P.P should verify and file a list of witnesses after scrutiny, declining repetition of witnesses in one point. So, after scrutiny the prosecution has filed the list of material witnesses to examine in this case obeying the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. There is no repetition of witnesses in this case. Unless the said witnesses shall be examined, the prosecution shall be highly prejudiced”. 8. On perusal of the application filed on behalf of the prosecution on 29.07.2025 with a specific prayer to summon 26 witnesses who have been named in the list of the witnesses that has been attached to the aforesaid application, this Court found that the prosecution has failed to give any justification for summoning the aforesaid 26 witnesses. The Petition filed at the behest of the prosecution is devoid of reason and merit, therefore this court refrains itself from making any further observation or else the same would cause prejudice in the mind of trial court. 9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid application which was filed by the prosecution on 29.07.2025, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated 28.08.2025 which has been assailed in the present application. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the present application filed at the instance of the State is devoid of merit and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. However, taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the allegation as well as factual Page 4 of 5. background of the present case, this court is of the view that another opportunity is to be provided to the State to file a better application. Accordingly, while disposing of the present application liberty is granted to the prosecution to file a better application justifying summoning of 26 witnesses, within a period of three weeks from today. In such eventuality, the learned trial court shall consider such application after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the defence as well as prosecution and dispose of the said application by passing a reasoned order within six weeks thereafter. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC stands disposed of. It is further observed that while considering the application to be filed by the Petitioner, the learned trial court shall also take into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.P.TamilMaran vs. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police in SLP (Crl.) No.1522 of 2023 and a batch of other cases which were disposed of by the judgment dated 20.04.2025. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 18-Oct-2025 16:29:20