Satyendra Kumar Soni Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Satyendra Kumar Soni Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 4 permitted to appear before the learned Court below through Video Conferencing mode; remaining petitioners to appear in person, with liberty to move an appropriate threat-perception application to be considered by the Court below on its own merit; in-person appearance compulsory whenever the Court below so directs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the presence of petitioner Nos.1 & 2, described as senior citizens and the mother-in-law and father-in-law of opposite party no.2, could have been dispensed with before the Court below, given the stated concerns of the influence of opposite party no.2's father and a perceived threat to the petitioners' life and liberty. +1 more

Court's answer

In so far as petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 4 are concerned, they can very well appear before the learned Court below through the Video Conferencing mode.

Ratio / Principle

So far as the other petitioners are concerned, there is no reason why they should not appear in the Court below only on the ground that they have threat perception.

Key takeaways

If the other petitioners have threat perception, they may move an appropriate application before the learned Court below, and the Court below is directed to deal with the application filed by the petitioners on its own merit.ratio¶17
It is made clear that as and when the learned Court below directs the parties to appear before the Court in person, they have to appear in person before the Court below.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRLMC No.33 of 2024 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack) — Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, order dated 07.02.2024 — Satyendra Kumar Soni & others v. State of Odisha & another. Petition under Section-482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 10.11.2022 of the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda in C.T. Case No.3245 of 2020, whereby the petitioners' application under Section-205 Cr.P.C. for dispensation with personal appearance was turned down. Held: (i) petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 4 may appear before the Court below through the Video Conferencing mode; (ii) the remaining petitioners have no ground to absent themselves merely on threat perception, but may move an appropriate application which the Court below shall deal with on its own merit; (iii) parties must appear in person whenever the Court below directs. CRLMC disposed of accordingly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.33 of 2024

Satyendra Kumar Soni & others ..……. Petitioners

Mr. Milan Kanungo, Senior Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha & another ..……. Opposite Parties Mr. B.K. Ragada,

Additional Government Advocate

Order No.

CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
07.02.2024
1. Heard.
2. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section-482 Cr.P.C.

challenging the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda in C.T. Case No.3245 of 2020 whereby their application under

Section-205 Cr.P.C. has been turned down.

3. Mr. Milan Kanungo, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that so far as the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are concerned, they are senior citizens and they are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the opposite party no.2. Therefore, their presence could have been dispensed with. He further submits that the prime reason of moving an

2

application under Section-205 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners is that the father of the opposite party no.2 is influential in the locality and they have a genuine threat to their life and liberty for appearing in the Court below. Both the facts have not been taken into consideration by the learned Court below while rejecting their application.

4. Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that in so far as the petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 4 are concerned, they can very well appear before the learned

Court below through the Video Conferencing mode. So far as the other petitioners are concerned, there is no reason why they should not appear in the Court below only on the ground that they have threat perception. If they have threat perception, they may move appropriate application before the learned Court below and the Court below is directed to deal with the application filed by the petitioners on its own merit.

5. However, it is made clear that as and when the learned Court below

directs the parties to appear before the Court in person, they have to appear in person before the Court below.

6. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 08-Feb-2024 11:08:46