IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4419 of 2024 Padmaja Singh …. Petitioner(s) Mr. A.K. Biswal, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA (for O.P. No.1) Mr. T. Mishra, Adv. (for O.P. No.2) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 03. ORDER 02.02.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 05.10.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Anandpur, Keonjhar in 1CC Case No.271 of 2015 in rejecting her petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall and re-examine herself so also to prove certain documents. 3. Heard. 4. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the Opposite Party No.2, who is the complainant in the Court below has filed a complaint case under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the Petitioner on the allegation that he has given Rs.35,00,000/- vide Cheque No.702948 of the State Bank of India, Cuttack City, College Square dated 01.07.2015 issued by her. Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2026 19:28:53 Signature Not Verified 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that certain documents could not be formally proved earlier due to inadvertence and that no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the Petitioner is permitted to examine herself once again. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State (Opposite Party No.1) opposes the prayer of the Petitioner contending that the Petitioner has already been examined at length and sufficient opportunity was granted to her. It is also contended that and that the present application is nothing but an attempt to fill up the lacunae in the evidence. 7. However, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and prays for early disposal of the case. 8. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the material available on record. 9. The law is well settled that recall or re-examination of a witness cannot be permitted as a matter of right and must not be allowed to enable a party to fill up omissions or lacunae in its case. The power of recall is to be exercised sparingly and only when the Court finds it necessary for the just decision of the case. 10. However, after hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and in the interest of justice and since the Opposite Party No.2 has no objection to setting aside the impugned order, the CRLMC application is allowed in part. The order dated 05.10.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Anandpur, Keonjhar in 1CC Case No.271 of 2015 is hereby set aside. This Court is of the view that there should be no delay in the trial and the same shall be completed at the earliest possible. 11. With the above observation and direction, this CRLMC stands dismissed. 12. Pending application (s), if any, shall also disposed of. 13. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial Court forthwith. 14. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun