Advocates:
['GOPAL KRUSHNA MOHANTY', '', 'S K GARNAYAK', 'A GARNAIK', 'P K DASH', 'M/S MANAS RANJAN DHAL', 'TK MISHRA', 'J MISHRA', 'SK KANUNGOINFORMANT']

Page 1 of 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.1376 of 2021

Mahesh Prasad Mishra

….

Petitioner

Mr. G.K.Mohanty

Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha

….

Opposite Party

Mr.S.K.Mishra,

Addl. Standing Counsel

Mr.M.R.Dhal (for informant)

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

Order No.

ORDER

08.11.2021.

1.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. In the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 22^nd July, 2021

passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri in G.R. Case No.287/2020

whereby the application filed by him under Section 205 of

Cr.P.C. for dispensing with his personal attendance in the case

was rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the

accused in the aforementioned case, which has been registered

Page 2 of 5

on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by one Minati Rani Mohapatra

before Singhadwara Police Station on 31^st January, 2020. After

investigation Police has submitted charge sheet under Sections

498-A/405 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and

cognizance of the said offences was taken by the learned

S.D.J.M., Puri. The Petitioner having received a summon from

the learned S.D.J.M., Puri, appeared and filed an application

under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. with prayer to dispense with his

personal attendance in the case on the ground that he is posted

at Palasguda Branch in the State of Bank of India, which is at a

distance of 330 Kms. from Puri and, moreover, he being posted

as the Branch Manager, it may not be possible on his part to

appear on each date of posting of the case personally. Learned

S.D.J.M., Puri vide order dated 22nd July, 2021, however, did

not accept such ground and rejected the petition under Section

205 of Cr.P.C. vide the impugned order.

4. Heard Mr. G.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner,

Mr. S.K.Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State,

and Mr. M.R.Dhal, who has entered appearance suo motu on

behalf of the informant-Minati Rani Mohapatra. It is opt to

mention that the informant after appearing in the case has also

filed a detailed affidavit in opposition to the instant application.

5. It is contended by Mr. Mohanty that the Petitioner-accused

had sought exemption from personal appearance on valid and

justified grounds. It is further submitted that even otherwise

Page 3 of 5

the personal attendance of the accused is not absolutely

necessary on each date of posting of the case and that even after

granting exemption from personal appearance, it is open to the

court to require the accused to appear personally whenever it

is felt proper, which the accused is bound to abide by.

In support of his contention Mr. Mohanty has cited two

decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, i.e. in the case of

Puneet

Dalmia v.

Central

Bureau

of Investigation,

Hyderabad; reported in (2020) 12 SCC 695, in the case of Sri

Rameshwar Yadav and Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Anr.;

reported in (2018)4 SCC 608 and one decision of this Court in

the case of Ashok Kumar Padhy v. Smt. Pratima Mohapatro;

reported 2020 (1) OLR-191.

6. Mr. Dhal, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the

prayer of the Petitioner by opposing that it a ruse adopted by

the Petitioner to somehow delay the trial as it is his intention to

harass the informant. There are other litigations pending before

different courts between the parties and in all such cases, the

Petitioner has avoided to appear. Since the a