p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1559 of 2026 Asish Behera …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Pradeep Kumar Parida, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 01. ORDER 14.05.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the learned ACJM (Spl. Court)-cum-ASJ, Cuttack in S.T. Case No.92 of 2025, whereby the learned trial Court allowed the prayer of the prosecution under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for examination of a witness who is neither a charge-sheeted witness nor whose statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. is available in the case record, and who was also not assaulted by the present Petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the informant in the present case was examined as P.W.1 and after his examination before the learned trial Court, the Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 15-May-2026 17:43:35 Signature Not Verified p. 2 prosecution filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to add one Dibakar Behera as a witness in the case and to issue summons to him for deposition, as his medical examination report is available on record. 5. Learned counsel further contends that the learned trial Court has completely overlooked the fact that, in the injury requisition relating to the said witness, the I.O., after ascertaining from the witness that he had been assaulted by one Daitary Behera, sent him for medical examination. When the injured had sustained injuries at the hands of another person, his examination in the present case is wholly unjustified and improper. 6. Learned counsel further contends that the said Dibakar Behera is neither a charge-sheeted witness nor is his earlier statement before the police available in the case record, nor is his presence at the occurrence and sustaining of any injury established in the alleged incident. 7. Learned counsel further contends that the injury sustained by the said witness has no nexus with the present Petitioner and, therefore, his examination in the case cannot be said to be necessary for the just decision of the case. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the order dated 06.04.2026. p. 3 8. Learned counsel for the State submits that the medical examination report of the injured Dibakar Behera is available in the case record and, therefore, he is required to be examined as a witness in the case. The witnesses, named, Sukanta Behera, Manoj Behera and Sachitra Dhal, in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., have also stated about the involvement of Dibakar Behera. 9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the learned trial Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. after taking into consideration the materials available on record, including the medical examination report of injured Dibakar Behera and the statements of witnesses, named, Sukanta Behera, Manoj Behera and Sachitra Dhal, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the involvement/presence of Dibakar Behera in the occurrence has been stated. 10. It is well settled that the power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is very wide and is to be exercised to ensure a just decision of the case. Merely because the proposed witness was not cited in the charge-sheet or because his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was not separately available in the case record cannot, by itself, be p. 4 a ground to deny his examination, if his evidence appears to be essential for the just adjudication of the case. 11. In the present case, the learned trial Court, upon being satisfied with the materials available on record, allowed the prosecution’s application for examination of Dibakar Behera. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to enter into the disputed question as to who had actually assaulted the said witness, as the same can be tested during trial by way of cross-examination and appreciation of evidence. 12. This Court does not find any illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the learned ACJM (Spl. Court)-cum-ASJ, Cuttack in S.T. Case No. 92 of 2025 warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 13. Accordingly, the CRLMC, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 14. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. 15. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun