[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
M. Suresh & Ors vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties on 11 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.398 of 2026
M. Suresh & Ors. ..... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Ramesh Chandra Behera,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 11.02.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid
arrangement.
2. The Petitioners have filed the present CRLMC
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashment of the order dated
24.01.2026 passed in G.R. Case No. 186 of 2013, now
pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-
cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Phulbani, as reflected in
Annexure-5.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant,
late Premananda Sahu, lodged an FIR before the Town
Police Station, Phulbani on 12.06.2013 alleging that on
05.09.2010, one P. Lata (Petitioner No.3) visited his
residence and introduced herself as having been
instructed by M. Suresh (Petitioner No.1) to meet him in
Reason: Authentication Page 1 of 5.
Location: OHC
Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:48
connection with an investment proposal in a company
styled as "U Source." It was represented to the informant
that any amount deposited with the said company would
be doubled within one year. He was further assured that
upon making an initial deposit, the company would itself
deposit the remaining two instalments over the next two
years. Believing such misrepresentations, the informant
agreed to invest and, on 08.09.2010, deposited a sum of
Rs.55,000/- in the name of his wife, Sukanti Sahu, through
M. Suresh. Pursuant thereto, a bond purportedly issued
by Reliance Life Insurance was handed over, and a
cheque of Rs.5,000/- was subsequently received.
However, when no further payments were forthcoming,
the informant approached M. Suresh for clarification,
whereupon he was allegedly abused in filthy language.
4. On the basis of the said FIR, the police registered the
case and, upon completion of investigation, implicated
the present Petitioners for the alleged commission of
offences under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and
Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 read
with Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that on the
basis of the said allegations, the learned court below took
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK charge, trial was commenced.
Reason: Authentication Page 2 of 5.
Location: OHC
Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:48
5. After closure of the prosecution evidence and
completion of the examination of the accused under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., the matter was posted for arguments
on 30.04.2025. On the said date, the learned CJM-cum-
Assistant Sessions Judge, Phulbani heard the arguments
in part from both sides and adjourned the case to
05.05.2025. Thereafter, on 05.05.2025, the case was posted
to 08.05.2025 for compliance under Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C., and upon completion of such formalities, it was
again fixed to 13.05.2025 for further arguments. After
hearing the parties on that date, the matter was once more
posted to 15.05.2025 for continuation of arguments.
Owing to some unavoidable circumstances, the
arguments could not be advanced on 15.05.2025, and the
case was adjourned to 17.06.2025.
6. On 17.06.2025, the learned court below directed the
learned APP to file an application under Section 348
Cr.P.C. for recall of P.Ws. 3, 6 and 7. The said application
was objected to by the defence; however, upon hearing,
the learned CJM-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge allowed
the prosecution's prayer. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners
approached this Court, and by order dated 08.07.2025,
this Court set aside the said order and remanded the
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK the witnesses in accordance with law.
Reason: Authentication Page 3 of 5.
Location: OHC
Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:48
7. It is contended that, thereafter, while dealing with
the recall of P.Ws. 3, 6 and 7, the learned trial court
permitted exhibition of the 'zimanamas' through the said
witnesses without adhering to the due procedure of law,
and despite earlier exhibition, the same documents were
again exhibited upon recall, which according to the
Petitioners, was wholly impermissible.
8. Subsequently, upon noticing that certain material
questions had not been put to the recalled witnesses, the
defence filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.,
accompanied by a questionnaire (Annexure-3), seeking
further opportunity of examination. The said application
was opposed by the prosecution. However, without
adequately considering the scope and object of Section
311 Cr.P.C., the learned CJM-cum-Assistant Sessions
Judge rejected the application outright. Assailing the
legality and propriety of the said rejection order, the
present CRLMC has been filed. Learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the State strongly objected on the
ground that this is a dilly dally tactics and the case is
unnecessary dealt by resorting the matter.
9. Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioners
and the learned counsel for the State, and upon perusal
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK prosecution has already availed opportunity to recall the
Reason: Authentication Page 4 of 5.
Location: OHC
Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:48
witnesses on more than one occasion. In the said process,
the grievance of the Petitioners regarding effective cross-
examination has not been duly addressed by the learned
CJM-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Phulbani. Having
regard to the stage of the trial and in order to secure the
ends of justice and ensure a fair opportunity to the
defence, this Court is inclined to interfere.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 24.01.2026 passed in
G.R. Case No.186 of 2013 pending before the learned
CJM-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Phulbani (Annexure-
5) is hereby set aside. The Petitioners are permitted to
cross-examine P.W. Nos. 3, 6 and 7 strictly confined to the
questionnaire already filed, and without seeking any
unnecessary adjournment. The learned trial court shall
ensure that the said exercise is completed within a period
of one month from the date of receipt of this order. No
adjournment shall be granted to either party, and the trial
shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law with
utmost expedition.
11. The CRLMC stands disposed of, accordingly.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
Reason: Authentication Page 5 of 5.
Location: OHC
Date: 12-Feb-2026 18:09:48
