IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.948 of 2026 Madhusudan Bage …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Shyam Sundar Chhualsingh, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 01. ORDER 30.03.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge- cum-Presiding Officer, Special Court under POCSO Act, Baripada in C.T. Case No.130 of 2023, wherein the petition at the instance of the Petitioner under Section 348 of BNSS (311 of Cr.P.C.) has been rejected. 3. Heard. 4. Challenging the impugned order dated 13.08.2025, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the victim and the informant have already been examined before the trial Court as P.W.14 and P.W.6 respectively. It is contended that, due to inadvertence on the part of the learned defence counsel, certain relevant questions could not be put forth to the said witnesses during their cross-examination. Hence, there is a necessity for their further cross-examination for effective Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:15:07 Signature Not Verified and proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the present case. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the grounds taken in the petition filed under Section 348 of the BNSS and mechanically rejected the said petition. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the prayer made in the CRLMC. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the victim (P.W.14) and the informant (P.W.6) have already been thoroughly and extensively examined and cross-examined on the effective dates i.e., on 02.07.2024 and 02.03.2024. All material questions relevant to the case were duly put to them by the defence. It is further contended that repeated recalling of the victim is impermissible in view of the provision under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, which mandates that the child should not be called repeatedly to testify in Court, as the same would amount to harassment. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this CRLMC. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the case pertains to the year 2023. P.W.6 and P.W.14 were examined, cross-examined, and discharged on the very first date of their appearance before the Court, i.e., on 02.03.2024 and 02.07.2024 respectively. In the meantime, as many as 20 prosecution witnesses out of 21 charge- sheeted witnesses have already been examined. 7. Upon consideration of the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and on careful examination of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, this Court finds that although the power under Section 348 of BNSS is wide, the same is required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. Such power cannot be invoked to fill up lacunae in the case of either party, nor can it be used as a device to conduct a retrial under the guise of recalling witnesses. 8. In the present case, the witnesses in question have already been subjected to detailed cross-examination and no sufficient or compelling reason has been shown as to why further cross- examination is indispensable for the just decision of the case. The plea of inadvertence on the part of the defence counsel, by itself, does not constitute a valid ground for recall. 9. Moreover, permitting such recall at a belated stage, when the trial has substantially progressed and almost all prosecution witnesses have already been examined, would inevitably result in protraction of the trial. This is particularly significant in cases arising under the POCSO Act, where expeditious disposal is of paramount importance and repeated summoning of the victim is discouraged under Section 33(5) of the said Act. 10. Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun