Allowed¶24

Ritan Roul @ Ritarani v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC17 Jul 2026CRLMC/2232/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 311 CrPC; further cross-examination; recall/re-examination of witnesses P.W.13 and P.W.14; quashing of trial court order; CRLMC No.2232 of 2026; High Court of Orissa; S.T. Case No.16/2022; Assistant Sessions Judge, Basudevpur; offences under Sections 323/324/307/506/427/34 IPC; single-day completion of cross-examination; no adjournment; cost of to-and-fro expenditure on petitioners; exercise of Section 311 sparingly; not to fill lacunas.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.05.2026 (rejecting the Section 311 Cr.P.C petition) set aside; trial court directed to permit further cross-examination of P.Ws.13 & 14, to be completed in a single day with no adjournment to any party on that date; Petitioners to bear the to-and-fro expenditure of P.Ws.13 & 14; CRLMC disposed of accordingly. ¶24

Ritan Roul @ Ritarani Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 13.05.2026 rejecting the Petitioners' petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C for further cross-examination of P.Ws.13 & 14 should be quashed/set aside. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Though the provision under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C is wide, it requires to be exercised sparingly and should not be utilized to fill up lacunas in the case of either of the parties; the provision has two parts, one discretionary and the other mandatory.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 13.05.2026 passed in S.T. Case No.16/2022 is set aside.

¶24

Key takeaways

In order to find out the truth, a second chance is provided to the Petitioners: the learned trial court is directed to allow the Petitioners to conduct further cross-examination of P.Ws.13 & 14.ratio¶24
The further cross-examination of P.Ws.13 & 14 shall be completed in a single day and no further adjournment of the matter shall be granted to any of the parties on the said date.ratio¶26
The Petitioners are directed to bear the cost of to-and-fro expenditure of P.Ws.13 & 14.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — CRLMC No.2232 of 2026 (order dated 17.07.2026, Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi): Petitioners booked for offences under Sections 323/324/307/506/427/34 IPC, tried as S.T. Case No.16/2022 before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Basudevpur, challenged the order dated 13.05.2026 rejecting their petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C for further cross-examination of P.Ws.13 & 14, and sought a direction permitting such further cross-examination. Held: Section 311 Cr.P.C, though wide, must be exercised sparingly and not utilized to fill up lacunas in the case of either party; the provision has a discretionary part and a mandatory part. Considering the submissions, and in order to find out the truth, the Court set aside the impugned order, directed the trial court to allow further cross-examination of P.Ws.13 & 14, ordered it to be completed in a single day with no adjournment to any party on that date, and directed the Petitioners to bear the witnesses' to-and-fro expenditure. The CRLMC was disposed of accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.2232 of 2026

¶3

Smt. Ritan Roul @ …. Petitioner(s) Ritarani & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra 4, Adv. versus-

¶5

…. State of Odisha Opposite Party(s) Miss Gayatri Patra, ASC

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

¶8

ORDER

¶9

Order No. 17.07.2026

¶10

01.

¶11

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶12

2. In filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioners who are booked for the offences under Sections 323/ 324/ 307/ 506/ 427/ 34 of the I.P.C, have prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Basudevpur in S.T. Case No.16/2022, wherein the petition at the instance of the Petitioners under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C has been rejected.

¶13

Apart from the above, the Petitioners have also sought for a direction from this Court to the learned Court in seisin over the matter for permitting them to conduct further cross-examination of the P.Ws.13 & 14.

¶14

Signature Not Verified 3. Heard.

¶15

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of O rissa Date: 17-Jul-2026 18:06:46

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

4. Challenging the impugned order dated 13.05.2026, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that though there is requirement of further cross-examination of the P.Ws.13 & 14 for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute involved in this matter, the learned Court in seisin over the matter rejected the petition at the instance of the Petitioners filed for the said purpose under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C without even paying any attention to the grounds taken in the said petition. He submits that though the P.Ws.13 & 14 have been examined, certain questions which are not put during their crossexamination, hinges on the fate of the case and the said questions may decide the position of the present Petitioners.

¶18

5. He contends that in order to find-out the truth, there is requirement of further cross examination of the P.Ws.13 & 14 as they are material witnesses. The Petitioners also undertake to bear the cost of to-and-fro expenditure of the P.Ws.13 & 14, if they be directed to come to the dock for their cross-examination. He, accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC.

¶19

6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the State, in her opposition, submits that the Petitioners are only attempting to linger the above noted proceeding by filing frivolous petitions. Hence, allowing the Petitioners to

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of O rissa Date: 17-Jul-2026 18:06:46

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

bring the P.Ws.13 & 14 to the dock again and again for cross-examination is only the abuse of process of law and only to harass the victim. She also contends that due to such activities of the Petitioners, trial in the above noted case is running in a senile pace which is not conducive to the criminal justice system. She, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this CRLMC.

¶24

7. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, this Court finds that though the provision under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C is wide, the said provision requires to be exercised sparingly and should not be utilized to fill up lacunas in the case of either of the parties. The said provision has also two parts; one is discretionary and the other one is mandatory. At this juncture, considering the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners, this Court is of the view that in order to find-out the truth a second chance should be provided to the Petitioners for further crossconducting examination of the P.Ws.13 & 14. This Court, therefore, while setting aside the impugned order dated 13.05.2026 passed in the above noted S.T. Case, directs the learned Court in seisin over the matter to allow the Petitioners to conduct further cross-examination of the P.Ws.13 & 14. The further cross-examination of the P.Ws.13 & 14 shall

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

be completed in a single day and no further adjournment

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of O rissa Date: 17-Jul-2026 18:06:46

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

of the matter shall be granted to any of the parties on the said date.

¶30

8. The Petitioners are also directed to bear the cost of toand-fro expenditure of the P.Ws.13 & 14.

¶31

9. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶32

Judge

¶33

Ayaskanta

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of O rissa Date: 17-Jul-2026 18:06:46

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Ritan Roul @ Ritarani v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritan Roul @ Ritarani 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

Pabitra Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Dijabara @ Duryodhan Nath Vs State of Odisha

Sk. Alloudin Vs State of Odisha

Dipa Singh Vs State of Odisha

Deepak Kumar Mohanta Vs State of Odisha

Aditya Nahak Vs State of Odisha