[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Minatirani Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S) on 10 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.746 of 2026
Minatirani Mohapatra .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Amitav Pradhan, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 10.03.2026
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioner being the informant
has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated
05.02.2026 passed by the learned J.M.F.C, Puri in G.R. Case
No.287 of 2020 arising out of Singhadwara P.S. Case No.12
of 2020 vide Annexure-1. In the said impugned order vide
Annexure-1, the learned J.M.F.C, Puri has dispensed with
examination of C.S.W-1 (informant-Petitioner) and also her
mother-C.S.W-6.
3. Heard.
4. Challenging the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 vide
Annexure-1, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that in the meantime, though the charge-sheeted witness
Designation: Personal Assistant
being the informant-C.S.W-1 and her mother-C.S.W-6 has
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 10-Mar-2026 17:21:23
been dispensed with due to their repeated absence in the
Court proceeding. He further contends that since the
Petitioner is residing in Delhi, she had some difficulties to
attend the case at Puri on the effective date. She was
absent only for two dates due to some personal difficulties.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in the process, submits
that since the Petitioner is the informant, she should be
examined for proper adjudication of the dispute. He,
accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer made in this
CRLMC.
5. In his opposition, learned counsel for the Opposite Party
submits that despite granting of sufficient opportunity
since the Petitioner remained absent in multiple times
before the learned Court in seisin over the matter, the said
Court has passed the impugned order dated 05.02.2026
thereby dispensing with examination of the Petitioner and
her mother. He further contends that right to speedy trial
is the fundamental right of the accused person. He,
accordingly, prays for dismissal of this CRLMC.
6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the
parties and looking to the factual scenario of the case, this
Court is of the view that since the Petitioner is the
informant and residing in Delhi, she should be provided a
further chance for her examination including her mother.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 10-Mar-2026 17:21:23
Accordingly, in order to avoid the miscarriage of justice,
this Court sets aside the impugned order dated 05.02.2026
passed by the learned J.M.F.C, Puri in G.R. Case No.287 of
2020 arising out of Singhadwara P.S. Case No.12 of 2020
vide Annexure-1. This Court, in the process, directs the
Petitioner-informant/C.S.W-1 and her mother -C.S.W-6 to
appear before the learned Court in seisin over the matter
on 20th March, 2026 for their necessary examination. In
such event, the learned Court in seisin over the matter shall
do the needful on the said date without any further
adjournment.
7. It is also made clear that if the Petitioner and her mother
fail to appear before the learned Court in seisin over the
matter on the date fixed hereinabove, the said Court is free
to pass any adverse order.
8. Considering the urgency involved in this matter, this
Court directs that the downloaded copy of this order from
the website of this Court shall be treated as an
authenticated copy.
9. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Ayaskanta
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 10-Mar-2026 17:21:23
