Personal exemption under Section 205 Cr.P.C. should be granted based on situational factors, not solely on the gravity of alleged offenses.

JUDGMENT :

R.K.PATTANAIK, J.

1. The petitioners have approached this Court by invoking its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 26^th August, 2021 passed in 1CC Case No.50 of 2020 by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur, whereby, an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C from personal exemption in terms thereof was declined and rejected.

2. The opposite party No.2 filed complaint (Annexure-1) in 1CC Case No.50 of 2020 with regard to series of events commencing from 2018 and onwards with a cause of action dated 26^th October, 2019, the date on which, the petitioners said to have entered into his office and hackled and forced him to sign and submit resignation and also assaulted him when he demanded the investment to be returned and when the liability was declined altogether by the letter dated 11th November, 2019 received by him, wherein, petitioner No.1 even refused to acknowledge his contribution to the trust and also to return the amount with an intention to misappropriate the same. Consequent upon receiving the complaint, the learned court below passed the order of cognizance under the alleged offences and thereafter passed the impugned order dated 26th August, 2021. The said decision of the learned court below declining the exemption in terms of Section 205 Cr.P.C. is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that it should have been allowed considering the nature of dispute and fact that all of them required to travel a distance of 400 to 500 kilometers to attend the court at Berhampur on each and every date of the posting of the case which is likely to cause immense inconvenience to them, the fact which was completely lost sight of by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur, who is an mechanical manner and without judicial application of mind rejected it with a conclusion that the offences are grievous in nature ignoring the nature of dispute inter se parties which is with regard to management of a residential college.

3. Heard Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the State opposite party No.1 and Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, namely, complainant.

4. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant-opposite party No.2 was in judicial custody for more than a month in connection with Nabarangpur P.S. Case No.292 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.929 of 2019 which is in connection with dispute over the management of the college and alleged mischief committed by him. It is also submitted that the petitioners are required to travel to Berhampur which is at a distance of 400 to 500 kilometers and having regard to the fact that the complaint is at the behest of opposite party No.2 with the allegation that his contribution to the trust and the fund he provided was not acknowledged and it was in respect of an incident dated 26^th October, 2019, long after which the complaint in the month of February, 2020 came to be filed and that too when the petitioners are involved in day-to-day management of the college and all of them devote much time to be organizational work and also having no criminal antecedent, the learned court below fell into serious error in declining personal exemption in terms of Section 205 Cr.P.C.

5. Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 complainant submits that the learned court below did not commit any serious error and rightly considering the nature and gravity offences alleged and taking cognizance of the fact that the petitioners committed the alleged mischief while running the educational institution rejected such a move and request to dispense with their personal attendan