Allowed

Manorama Singh v. Sunitarani Khadanga

Orissa HC28 Jul 2022CRLMC/1539/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Orissa allowed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application setting aside the Lower Court's order recalling a witness. The trial court failed to assign reasons for allowing the recall without reaching a conclusion that it was essential for a just decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the trial court to pass a reasoned order. The matter shall be decided within 15 days.

Manorama Singh Vs Sunitarani Khadanga — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.1539 of 2022

Manorama Singh

…. Petitioner

versus-

…. Sunitarani Khadanga Opposite Party

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE S. PUJAHARI

Order No.

ORDER

28.07.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

Mr. D. Nanda, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party .

¶14

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to set aside the order dated 25^th April, 2022 passed by the leanred J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar in C.M.C. No.695 of 2016.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. D. Nanda, learned counsel for the Opposite Party.

¶16

The impugned order dated 25^th April, 2022 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar in C.M.C. No.695 of 2016 reads as thus:-

¶17

“The case record is put up today for orders. Learned counsel for both the parties are present and filed hazira. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 filed a petition for recall the petition (P.W.1) for further cross-examination. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently objected to that petition.

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the case record and considering the prayer of the learned counsel for O.P. No.2, this court is inclined to allow the petition filed by the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. Hence the petition is allowed. Put up on 13.05.22 for further cross-examination to the petitioner (P.W.1).”

¶21

No doubt, the trial court has power to recall the witnesses at any time. The power is plenary one. But the same should not be exercised on mere asking of a party. The court before allowing such prayer must reach to a conclusion that examination of the witnesses on recall is essential for just decision of the case. However, the court in the order impugned as quoted supra having not assigned any reasons much less reason germane, the impugned order cannot sustained.

¶22

Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar who shall after hearing both the parties on the said petition pass a reasoned order taking into consideration the law and also the statutory mandate in this regard not later than 15 days of filing of certified copy of this order or receipt of the copy of this order, whichever is earlier. The Petitioner undertakes to file a copy of this order within ten days hence.

¶23

Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application.

¶24

(S. Pujahari) Judge

¶25

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Manorama Singh v. Sunitarani Khadanga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manorama Singh v. Sunitarani Khadanga

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

Satyabrata Dhir Vs State of Odisha

T.a.Sampath Kumar Vs Asst.Regr.Co.Orissa

T.a.Sampath Kumar Vs Asst.Regr.Co.Orissa

Biswajit Hota Vs Subhashree Panda

Chema@Niranjan Donak Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Mishra @ Ashok Kumar Mishra Vs Ellora Pattnaik