Dismissed

Prasant Ku.Sahoo v. Barun Ku.Chinara

Orissa HC4 Dec 2018CRLMC/128/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Special Leave Petition, the Hon'ble Sahai referred to the limitation under Section 3 of the Cr.P. in 202, and dismissed the petition against the correction of the order. The petition filed for quashing the order, allowing the cross-examination of the opposite party-witness. No time fixed for hearing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no notice to be issued; no stay of proceedings allowed.

Prasant Ku.Sahoo Vs Barun Ku.Chinara — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

CRLMC No.128 of 2018

¶2

04.12.2018

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶4

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar in 1.C.C. No.2500/2016.

¶5

It appears that before the court below, the petitioners have filed a petition for recall of P.W.1, who was not cross-examined, which was allowed vide order dated 23.10.2017 subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the opposite party-complainant, but the petitioners did not pay the cost. On the next date, since the Bar Members having abstained from work, the case was adjourned to 21.12.2017. On next date, thus P.W.1 was present, a petition for time was filed on behalf of the petitioners, which was rejected and the cross-examination of P.W.1 was declined.

¶6

Now, the petitioners are ready and willing to crossexamine the P.W.1 and pay the cost, it is submitted to allow the prayer made as hearing the opposite party. Hence, notice be issued and the further proceeding of the aforesaid case be stayed till disposal of this petition.

¶7

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to entertain such prayer to issue notice and stay the matter, but this Court disposes of the CRLMC with the order on the next date falling after 25^th January, 2019, the opposite party-complainant (P.W.1) to appear before the court below and the petitioners shall be given a chance to cross-examine him subject to their depositing a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand)

¶8

¶9

before a week which shall be paid to the opposite partycomplainant (P.W.1) on that date.

¶10

Petitioners, therefore, shall make themselves available with their advocate on that date positively, failing which the benefit of the order shall not be given to the petitioners.

¶11

Copy of this order be sent to the opposite partycomplainant (P.W.1) by registered post by the petitioners immediately, so also produce in the court within ten days ahead on the date fixed. .

¶12

…………………..

¶13

S.Pujahari, J.

¶14

Prasant Ku.Sahoo v. Barun Ku.Chinara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasant Ku.Sahoo v. Barun Ku.Chinara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tukuna Panda Vs State of Orissa

Manjulata Rout Vs State of Orissa

Tunia@Sushil Kumar Das Vs State of Orissa

Sulata Kumari Sahu Vs State of Orissa

Pradyumna Ku.Behera Vs State of Orissa

Jamil Khan Vs State of Orissa