Dibakar Rohidas Vs State of Odisha

Mr. Abhaya Kumar Parida, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the Informant by filing a vakalatnama in Court today and the same be kept on record.

¶16

Affidavits filed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant in Court today and the same be kept on record.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Informant and learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶18

This application has been filed by invoking the inherent

¶19

Page 1 of 4.

¶20

power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. thereby the petitioner has sought for quashing of order dated 05.04.2024 under Annexure-1. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial court has rejected the application of the Petitioner filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.-1, the victim-informant for further cross-examination at the instance of the accusedpetitioner. Such application having been rejected by the learned trial court by a detailed order dated 05.04.2024, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that in the meantime the matter has been amicably settled between the family of the accused and the informant. He further contended that to bring on record certain subsequent developments, further cross-examination of the victim is necessary. In course of her argument, learned counsel or the Petitioner also referred to the questionnaire which has also been reflected in the impugned rejection order dated 05.04.2024. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the victim be recalled for further cross-examination for the greater interest of justice.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Informant on the other hand filed an affidavit before this Court. Such affidavit has been sworn before the Oath Commissioner of this Court on 08.05.2025. On perusal of the copy of the affidavit sworn by the Opposite Party No.2-victim it appears that the victim and the Petitioner are related to each other i.e. the Petitioner is the brother-in-law of the victim. It has also been indicated in the said affidavit that the F.I.R. has been lodged by the ill-advice of some co-villagers and

¶23

Page 2 of 4.

¶24

due to a misunderstanding on account of loan transaction between two families. The victim has further stated in the affidavit that the matter has been amicably settled at the intervention of the local villagers and well-wishers of both the families. Accordingly, a compromise has been effected and the same has been reduced in writing in shape of an Rajinama . In the affidavit, the victim has categorically stated that she does not want to proceed further in S.T. Case No.24 of 2017.

¶25

On a specific query being put to the learned counsel for the Informant by this Court as to whether the victim has any objection for further cross-examination, learned counsel for the victiminformant stated that the victim does not have any objection, if she is recalled by Court for further cross-examination.

¶26

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the prayer made in the present application. She further submitted that the victim has already been examined and cross-examined at the instance of the defence. Therefore, for recall of the victim at this juncture is not only be against the interest of justice but also be against the spirit of law. On such ground, learned counsel for the State opposed for further cross-examination of the victim. Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of the present application.

¶27

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts, further keeping in view the subsequent developments and further taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the victim as well as the affidavit of the informant-Opposite Party No.2, this Court is of the view that the victim-informant has no objection, in

¶28

Page 3 of 4.

¶29

the event she is recalled for further cross-examination under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the order dated 05.04.2024 under Annexure-1. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. It is further directed that the learned trial court shall do well to recall and on a single day her cross-examination shall be concluded. The Parties are directed to cooperate with the learned trial court for an early conclusion of the trial.

¶30

11. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.

¶31

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶32

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge

¶33

Anil

¶34

Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4.

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Jul-2025 17:36:08

Dibakar Rohidas v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dibakar Rohidas v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biswajit Bidyadhar Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Ranjan Kumar Manik Vs State of Odisha

Deepak Mallik Vs State of Odisha

Gunu@Papuni Moharana Vs State of Odisha

Mantu@Umakanta Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Bighini@Bighnesar Nayak@Bighneswar Nayak Vs State of Odisha