Basudev Behera & Anr vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S)
2026 Latest Caselaw 2799 Ori

Orissa High Court

Basudev Behera & Anr vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S) on 24 March, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                 CRLMC No.885 of 2026
                                  Basudev Behera & Anr.      ....               Petitioner(s)
                                                                   Mr. Debasnan Das, Adv.
                                                                Miss Adyashakti Priya, Adv.
                                                          -versus-
                                  State of Odisha           ....           Opposite Party(s)
                                                                 Smt. Sarita Moharana, Adv.

                                        CORAM:
                                        HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
               Order No.                                  ORDER
                  01.                                    24.03.2026
                                  1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioners against whom the

allegation of assaulting the husband of the informant is

made, have prayed for quashing the impugned order

dated 12.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in S.T. Case No.164/04

wherein the petition at the instance of the Petitioners for

issuance of summons to the defence witnesses named

therein for their testimonies, has been rejected.

3. Heard.

4. Challenging the impugned order dated 12.02.2026,

learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that though

there is requirement of examination of the defence

witnesses whose names are reflected in the petition Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:48:14 rejected vide impugned order dated 12.02.2026, for

proper and effective adjudication of the dispute

involved in this matter, the learned Court in seisin over

the matter did not pay any attention to the grounds

taken by the Petitioners in the said petition and rejected

the same. She, accordingly, prays for allowing the

prayer made in this CRLMC.

5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the State submits

that the above noted S.T case has been pending since

2004. She further contends that the Petitioners are only

attempting to linger the said proceeding by filing

frivolous petitions. She also contends that due to such

activities of the Petitioners trial in the above noted case

is running in a senile pace which is not conducive to the

criminal justice system. She, accordingly, prays for

dismissal of this CRLMC.

6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both

the parties and looking to the impugned order dated

12.02.2026, this Court finds that while deciding the

above noted petition the learned Court in seisin over the

matter had framed the following issues for

determination:-

a. That the application is not intended for vexation or delay in proceeding;

Designation: Personal Assistant sought to be summoned is relevant to the case

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:48:14 and sine qua non for just decision of the case;

It further appears that on hearing both the parties and

looking to the grounds taken in the said petition, the

learned Court in seisin over the matter declined to

entertain the said petition with the following

observation:-

"if the above points are found to be negative the Court is yet within its remit to issue summons to defence witnesses.

In the present case examination of the accused persons u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C was made on dtd.25.11.2025. Thereafter the case record was posted for defence evidence on dtd.02.12.2025. ON several occasions, the learned defence counsel sought adjournment seeking to adduce defence evidence and ultimately filed the present petition on dtd.13.01.2016 i.e. after a gap of about 2 months. Besides that nothing has been mentioned in the petition as to why examination of the witnesses is necessary or how their evidence would be relevant to the present case.

Keeping in view the aforementioned discussion, the petition filed on behalf of the accused persons, sans any merit, stands rejected."

7. The above noted proceeding has been pending since

2004. In the meantime, more than twenty years have

already elapsed. In the said petition, it was not

mentioned as to why examination of the said witnesses

are necessary or how their evidence would be relevant

to the present case. This Court, therefore, does not find

any flaw in the impugned order dated 12.02.2026.

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Accordingly, this Court declines to entertain the prayer Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:48:14

made in this CRLMC.

8. This CRLMC is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:48:14