IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 1777 of 2026 Sanjaya Kumar Padhi ..... Petitioner (s) Mr. Ramakrishna Naik, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 13.07.2026 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-III (Cog.Taking), Cuttack in 1.C.C. Case No.93 of 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall the P.W.1 for cross-examination of the Opposite Party, which was allowed imposing cost of Rs.1000/- to adjourn the case on 26.09.2025. On that day, cross-examination was deferred to 13.10.2025. Thereafter, the Petitioner had filed a time petition which was allowed with cost of Rs.1000/- fixing the case to 31.10.2025. Lastly, the Petitioner had filed another time petition on the date of posting, but, on 14.11.2025 the learned Trial Court Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-Jul-2026 16:51:50 Signature Not Verified rejected the said petition on the ground for non-compliance of the previous order discharging CW-1 by posting the case to 19.11.2025 for accused statement. Further, on 19.11.2025 the petitioner was represented through counsel and filed a petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall C.W.-1 which was rejected on 17.12.2025. The contents of the said order is extracted hereinbelow:- “On perusal of the case record it is found that, this court allowed the recall petition U/s. 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by counsel for the accused on 14.08.2025 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- but counsel for the accused had not cross-examine the CW1 after giving several time on 26.09.2025, 13.10.2025, 31.10.2025 & 14.11.2025. He failed to comply to the order towards payment of said cost of Rs.1,000/- and also had not filed any supportive documents towards plea given in his time petition. Now in order to linger the case counsel for the accused has filed petition to recall CW.1. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is my humble and considered opinion that, the counsel for the accused had given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the CW1 on earlier occasions, but he did not cross-examined the PW1. At this stage his petition seems to be one which has been presented in order to protract the trial. For the reason as stated above I am not inclined to allow the petition filed by the prosecution. Hence, the petition stands rejected. Put up on 23.12.2025 for accused statement.” Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-Jul-2026 16:51:50 Signature Not Verified 4. In view of the aforesaid reason given by the learned J.M.F.C.- III (Cog.Taking), Cuttack, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner was repeatedly absent from the Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer as advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Consequently, the prayer for quashing of the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-III (Cog.Taking), Cuttack in 1.C.C. Case No.93 of 2023 is rejected. 5. The CRLMC stands disposed of, accordingly. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Gitanjali