Ashok Kumar Mangaraj's plea for inclusion of specific questions in examination denied, signaling judiciary's stand against dilatory tactics in cheque dishonour cases.
In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has affirmed the decision of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.), Khordha, rejecting an application filed by Ashok Kumar Mangaraj under Section 313(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The application sought the inclusion of specific questions during his examination in a cheque dishonour case, which the trial court dismissed as a tactic to delay proceedings.
Presided over by Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J., the High Court scrutinized the petition filed by Mangaraj challenging the trial court's order dated January 6, 2026. The case originated from a complaint by Manasi Sahoo regarding the dishonour of a cheque amounting to Rs. 3,50,000, allegedly issued by Mangaraj as repayment of a loan.
The petitioner argued that Section 313(5) of CrPC is a procedural safeguard designed to ensure a fair trial by allowing the accused to propose questions that may clarify incriminating circumstances in the evidence. However, the trial court dismissed the application, viewing it as a delay strategy given Mangaraj's repeated adjournments and the timing of the application at an advanced trial stage.
The High Court supported the trial court's exercise of discretion, emphasizing that Section 313(5) is enabling and not obligatory, allowing courts to incorporate suggested questions only if deemed necessary and appropriate. It highlighted the legislative intent under the Negotiable Instruments Act for expeditious disposal of cheque dishonour cases, asserting that tactics delaying trial should not be entertained.
The judgment cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Raj Kumar @ Suman vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Samsul Haque vs. State of Assam, underscoring the importance of direct court-accused dialogue through Section 313 to ensure no incriminating evidence goes unexplained.
The court concluded that no prejudice was caused to Mangaraj, as he had ample opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and contest evidence. This ruling reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural fairness while discouraging attempts to prolong legal proceedings in straightforward cheque dishonour cases.
The dismissal of the CRLMC by the Orissa High Court marks a pivotal moment in judicial handling of procedural applications, reaffirming the balance between fair trial rights and efficient case resolution.
Bottom line:-
Section 313(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is enabling in nature and does not create a mandatory obligation for the trial court to incorporate questions suggested by the parties. It is discretionary and must be applied judiciously, considering the nature of the case and overall fairness of the trial.
Statutory provision(s): Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 138 and Section 143(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Ashok Kumar Mangaraj v. Manasi Sahoo, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc id # 2938072
