IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 5455 of 2025 Abhinash Panda ……… Petitioner(s) Mr. Bijay Kumar Mishra, Adv. -Versus- Manasi Acharya & Anr. ……. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Adv. (for O.P.1 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 11.05.2026 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner, in this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., has challenged the order dated 29.11.2025/Annexure-7 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore in C.R.P. No.337 of 2019 rejecting his application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling of P.W.1 for further cross-examination before the trial court. However, the learned trial court has rejected the same without appreciating the facts. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-May-2026 17:53:11 Signature Not Verified 2 5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 submits that Petitioner had already given six opportunities to cross-examine the Opposite Party No.1/wife. He further submits that the learned Judge, Family Court has rightly rejected the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioner. 6. The learned trial court in the order dated 29.11.2025 has observed as follows: “So far as the prayer of the opp.party to prove the documents like xerox copy of affidavit No. 1602 dtd.27.05.2020 executed by the petitioner, status of application of Lok Seba Adhikar dtd.27.05.2020 filed by the petitioner for her duplicate Diploma certificate, xerox copy of the diploma certificate and marksheet of the petitioner, xerox copy of letter vide No.3512 dtd.02.09.2024 issued by PIO, Sub-Collector office, Balasore, letter No.867 dtd.31.08.2024 issued by Deputy collector Balasore and register Entry No. 1602 dtd.27.05.2020 to the father of the opp.party is concerned, it seems that the opp.party wants to prove the educational qualification of the petitioner and to counter her about the facts what she has stated in her cross-examination at para-5 & 7. It is admitted that the petitioner has possessed her qualification as Diploma in Computer science. The documents which are sought to be exhibited through cross- examination of PW-1, as it reveals from para-5 of the petition dtd. 17.03^025 filed by the opp.party that the said documents were already collected prior to filing of petition dtd. 17.03.2025. But the opp.party has not filed the said document along with the petition dtd. 17.03.2015 seeking leave of the court to exhibit the same. However, after a long gap i.e. on dtd. 10.11.2025 he has filed the petition along with those documents seeking leave of the court to exhibit the same through PW-1 during course of her cross-examination. It is pertinent to mention here that when the petitioner has admitted that her qualification is Diploma in computer science, it is not at all necessary to recall her further to exhibit her educational certificates. It is further seen that the documents i.e. the xerox copy of letter No.3512 dtd.02.09.2024 and letter No.867 dtd.31.08.2024 of the office of sub-collector, Balasore has been issued to the father of the opp.party on his application under RTI Act. The present proceeding filed u/s 125 CrP.C. is not between the petitioner and her father-in-law. Rather between the petitioner and her husband. So, what information the father of the opp.party has received regarding the affidavit of the petitioner before Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-May-2026 17:53:11 Signature Not Verified 3 S.R.Behera, ORS, Executive Magistrate, Sub-Collector office, Balasore vide CF No. 1602 dtd.27.05.2020, for issuance of for duplicate Diploma certificate is not at all necessaiy for just decision of this case. On thus considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the legislative intent of Sec.311 Cr.P.C. and keeping in view the conduct of the opp.party, it is my humble view that the opp.party has filed both the petitions with an intention to linger this case without having any sufficient reasons. As such I am not inclined to allow the petitions dtd. 17.03.2025 & 10.11.2025 filed by the opp.party and accordingly both the petitions are stands rejected.” 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1, this Court is of the opinion that the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioner in the aforesaid case does not have any merit for any consideration. 8. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Designation: P.A.