Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.5671 of 2025 Rama Krushna Jamadar ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Soubhagya Kumar Dash -Versus- State Of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – D.K Sahoo, AGA Satya Ranjan Acharya (for O.P No.2) CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 27.07.2026 Order No. 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as counsel appearing for the victim-Opposite Party No.2. 3. Earlier pursuant to the Notice issued by this Court to the victim-Opposite Party No.2 learned counsel has entered appearance for the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a Vakalatanama and the same Vakalatanama be accepted and be taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the victim-Opposite Party No.2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate perused the application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 5. By filing the present application under Section 528 of the BNSS,2023, the accused in G.R. Case No.03 of 2025 pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Parlakhemundi which corresponds to Ramagiri P.S. Case No.05 dated 01.02.2025, which was initially registered for commission of an offence Page 2 of 4. punishable under Sections 64(2)(m)/ 296/ 115(2)/ 351(2) of BNS read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 has approached this Court with a prayer to set aside order dated 11.11.2025 at Anenxure- 4 passed by the abovenoted Court thereby rejecting the Accused- Petitioner’s application under Section 348 of the BNSS to recall the witnesses Nos.1,3 and 4 who were examined from the side of the prosecution. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that during the pendency of the trial both the family of the Petitioner as well as the victim have sat together and they have decided to settle the matter amicably, during such settlement they have further decided that that Petitioner shall marry the victim girl. In view of the later development, the Petitioner has approached the learned Trial Court by filing an application under Section 348 of the BNSS for recording the statement of the victim. Such application having been rejected vide order dated 11.11.2025 at Annexure-4 the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. While assailing the order dated 11.11.2025 learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Trial Court has not given any reason while rejecting such prayer of the Petitioner. Further referring to the order at Annexure-4, learned counsel or the Petitioner contended that since the allegation made in the FIR with regard to sexual offence committed on a minor girl, the Court was not inclined to permit the Petitioner to recall the witnesses as has been sought for by the Petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the victim in the present case was a minor at the time of the occurrence. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that there exist an embargo in the POCSO Act with regard to recalling of a Page 3 of 4. minor child as a witness for her further cross-examination by the defence. He further contended that the victim minor girl has already been examined by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the recall of such witness at this stage would cause serious prejudice to the trial. On such grounds, counsel for the State objected to the recall of the witnesses Nos.1,3 and 4. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the victim-Opposite Party No.2 on the other hand contended that the matter has been amicably settled between the family of the Petitioner and the Victim. He further contended that so far the victim-Opposite Party No.2 is concerned, he does not oppose to her recalling at the instance of the Petitioner. It was also contended that in the event this Court directs the learned Trial Court to recall the Victim-Opposite Party No.2, she is ready and willing to go to the Court for further cross-examination. On such grounds, learned counsel for the Victim-Opposite Party No.2 supported the case of the Petitioner. 9. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both the sides on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the subsequent development. Further taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the Victim-Opposite Party No.2 who was the major victim and in the meantime and further taking note of the facts that the matter has been amicably settled between the Petitioner and the Victim and their respective families. This Court is of the considered view regarding the Bar's contention that the POCSO Act would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. More so, when the Victim-Opposite Party No.2 has no such objection to her recalling by the Court for her further cross-examination in this matter. 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual position and Page 4 of 4. further taking note of the submissions made by counsels appearing for both the sides as well as taking note of the submissions made by counsel appearing for Victim-Opposite Party No.2, this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 11.11.2025 at Annexure-4 and further the matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court with a direction to recall the witnesses of the prosecution for their further cross-examination. Accordingly, it is also directed that such witnesses be recalled to appear on a particular date and the endeavour shall be made to conclude that the cross-examination on a single day without further referring the matter for their cross- examination. 11. This Court further makes it clear that the questions to be asked during the cross-examination shall be confined to questions which have already been submitted by the Petitioner before the learned Trial Court. 12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the CRLMC Application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Nitu Prava