Orissa High Court
Sujata Baral vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 27 January, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.5670 of 2025
Sujata Baral .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. S. Mishra, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party(s)
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC (for O.P. No.1)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
27.01.2026 Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Puri in G.R. Case No.1050 of 2021, whereby the petition dated 20.06.2025 filed by the Petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act was rejected. By the said petition, the Petitioner had prayed to recall the order dated 13.05.2025, by which the memo of decline filed by the learned APP was accepted, and to summon one charge-sheeted witness for examination. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer
3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 28-Jan-2026 19:17:42 the State.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Court has ample power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act to summon, recall or re-examine any witness whose Page 1 of 4 evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case. He further contends that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the Petitioner-informant never intended to conduct the trial personally or through his advocate, but merely sought for recalling of a charge-sheeted independent witness, named, Prasanna Bhoi, for examination by the learned APP and not by the advocate for the informant. He further contends that, in the absence of permission under Section 302 of the Cr.P.C., the private counsel for the informant has no locus standi to conduct the prosecution. As per Section 301(2) Cr.P.C., only a private pleader may act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor and, at best, may submit written arguments with the leave of the Court after the closure of evidence. In the case at hand, no such permission was sought or granted by the learned trial Court.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that, in terms of Sections 242(3) and 254 of the Cr.P.C., the Court is bound to examine witnesses produced by the prosecution. However, in the present case, despite repeated issuance of summons, the said charge sheeted witness failed to appear before the Court. Consequently, the prosecution, through the learned APP, declined to examine the said witness. The said memo of decline was duly accepted by the learned trial Court.
6. Learned counsel for the State further submits that invocation of the power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. on the same set of facts would amount to recalling or reviewing an earlier judicial order, which is Page 2 of 4 impermissible in law. It is, therefore contended that no ground exists for exercise of the suo motu power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. in the present case. It is contended that the application, as framed, is beyond the statutory role assigned to a victim's counsel under Sections 301 and 302 of the Cr.P.C. and if allowed, would amount to usurping the statutory function of the Public Prosecutor, who alone is dominus litis in a session or warrant trial, unless specific permission is granted under the statute.
7. So far as Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is well settled that the provision empowers the Court to summon, recall or re- examine any witness at any stage of trial if the evidence of such witness appears to be essential for a just decision of the case. Likewise, Section 165 of the Evidence Act confers wide powers upon the Court to put questions for the purpose of discovering the truth; however, such powers are to be exercised judiciously and not in a mechanical manner.
8. In the case at hand, the prosecution, being dominus litis, consciously declined to examine the said witness and the learned trial Court accepted the memo of decline upon judicial satisfaction. No sufficient compelling reason has been shown for summoning the said charge- sheeted witness after such decline was accepted by a reasoned judicial order.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Puri, rejecting petition filed by the Petitioner under Page 3 of 4 Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.
10. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed.
11. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun Page 4 of 4