p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.125 of 2026 Shabana Perwin …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv. & Associates -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA (for O.P. No.1) Mr. Kuldeep Mohanty, Adv. (for O.P. Nos.2 to 6) CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 02. ORDER 09.02.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Balasore in S.T. Case No.26/68 of 2013, rejecting the petition filed by the informant to summon the doctors as well as the Manager, General Nurshing Home, Cuttack for appearance and examination. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 4. It appears that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 19.07.2025, summons were issued by the learned trial Court to two doctors, named, Dr. Tapan Kumar Satapathy and Dr. Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Feb-2026 20:18:21 Signature Not Verified p. 2 Rabi Jee @ Rabinarayan Jee. However, the summons were returned un-served on the ground that the addressee had left the given address, as the addresses were found to be incorrect. Consequently, service of notice could not be effected. Thereafter, the Petitioner again approached the learned trial Court seeking issuance of summons to the aforesaid doctors at their correct addresses. The learned trial Court, however, declined the said prayer of the Petitioner vide order dated 25.09.2025, which is impugned herein. 5. The apprehension expressed by the learned trial Court is that even though the incorrect address was a genuine error, this Court is of the considered view that summoning such witnesses is equally essential for the Court to arrive at the truth. 6. In view of the above, though the trial has substantially progressed, the examination of the aforesaid two witnesses is equally vital for the defence. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to furnish the correct addresses of the above mentioned two doctors, whereupon the learned trial Court shall issue summons to them afresh. 7. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the case had already been posted for arguments. 8. In such view of the matter, the process of examination of the two doctors shall be completed within the shortest p. 3 possible time, preferably, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the correct addresses. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Balasore in S.T. Case No26/68 of 2013 is set aside. 10. If necessary, the learned trial Court can also exercise the option of examining the said two witnesses through Virtual Court, in accordance with Orissa High Court Video Conferencing for Court Rules, 2020. 11. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands allowed. 12. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated. 13. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 14. A copy of the order be communicated to the learned trial Court for information. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun