Gangadhar Sahoo Vs Padmini Nath — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Gangadhar Sahoo Vs Padmini Nath — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Partial relief by modification of the impugned orders: complete exemption denied; Petitioner No.1 to appear in person before the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road on dates fixed/directed; Petitioner No.2 permitted to appear through virtual mode/video conferencing subject to identity verification, with the trial Court at liberty to require his physical presence at stages where indispensable, both Petitioners to be represented through counsel, and the benefit recallable on misuse or non-cooperation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners' personal appearance could be dispensed with under Section 228 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 205 Cr.P.C.) in the complaint case, notwithstanding rejection of their application by the J.M.F.C. and affirmation by the revisional Court. +1 more

Court's answer

The power under Section 205 Cr.P.C./Section 228 BNSS is discretionary and is intended to relieve an accused from unnecessary hardship where insistence on personal attendance on every date is not warranted.

Ratio / Principle

Dispensation of personal attendance cannot be claimed as a matter of right; the Court is required to balance the convenience of the accused with the requirements of a fair trial.

Key takeaways

Petitioner No.1 is stated to be residing within the jurisdiction of the trial Court and carrying on business locally; no exceptional circumstance has been shown warranting complete dispensation of his personal appearance, so he must appear in person before the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road on the date fixed and on such further dates as directed.ratio¶25
Insofar as Petitioner No.2 is concerned, it is not disputed that he works as a contractual labourer at Surat, Gujarat; requiring his physical presence on each and every date would cause undue hardship and financial burden, and the advancement of technology and recognition of virtual participation in appropriate cases under the BNSS justify a pragmatic approach where the identity of the accused is not in dispute and his participation can be effectively secured through video conferencing.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Procedure — Dispensation of personal appearance — Section 228 BNSS (corresponding to Section 205 Cr.P.C.) — Discretionary power; not claimable as a matter of right; accused's convenience to be balanced against fair-trial requirements. In a complaint case (C.C. Case No.367 of 2024, J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road) alleging trespass, assault and criminal intimidation dated 16.11.2024, where the J.M.F.C. (order dated 06.03.2025) had rejected the accused-Petitioners' plea for dispensation of personal appearance and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur Road (Crl. Rev. No.13 of 2025, order dated 07.04.2026) had affirmed it, the High Court disposed of the CRLMC by modifying, not setting aside, the impugned orders: complete exemption was refused. Petitioner No.1, residing within the trial Court's jurisdiction and carrying on business locally, with no exceptional circumstance shown, must attend in person. Petitioner No.2, employed as a contractual labourer at Surat, Gujarat, whose physical presence on every date would cause undue hardship and financial burden, was permitted to appear through virtual mode/video conferencing subject to verification of identity to the trial Court's satisfaction, the trial Court being free to compel his personal appearance for framing of notice/charge, examination, identification, compromise verification or other indispensable stages; both Petitioners to appear through counsel and refrain from unnecessary adjournments; the concession recallable on misuse or non-cooperation. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.; order dated 23.06.2026)

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2026 16:29:46

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.1746 of 2026

Gangadhar Sahoo & Anr.

…. Petitioner(s)

Mr. Debasis Tripathy, Adv. -versus-

Padmini Nath

…. Opposite Party(s)

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER

Order No. 23.06.2026 01.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid

arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners. 3. The present CRLMC has been filed assailing the order dated 07.04.2026 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur Road in Crl. Rev. No.13 of 2025 affirming the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road in 1 C.C. Case No.367 of 2024 whereby the petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 228 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 205 Cr.P.C.) seeking dispensation of their personal appearance was rejected.

4. The complaint case arises out of allegations that on 16.11.2024 the Petitioners trespassed into the bari of the

Page 1 of 4

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2026 16:29:46

complainant, assaulted her, dragged her and threatened her. Cognizance having been taken, summons were issued to the Petitioners.

5. The Petitioners thereafter filed an application under Section 228 BNSS seeking dispensation of their personal attendance on the grounds that Petitioner No.1 is a small businessman and Petitioner No.2 is employed as a contractual labourer at Surat in the State of Gujarat and would suffer hardship in attending the Court on each date.

6. The learned J.M.F.C. rejected the petition primarily on the ground that the offences alleged are serious in nature and the presence of the accused persons may be required during trial. The revisional Court concurred with the said view.

7. It is well settled that the power under Section 205 Cr.P.C./Section 228 BNSS is discretionary and is intended to relieve an accused from unnecessary hardship where insistence on personal attendance on every date is not warranted. At the same time, such dispensation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the Court is required to balance the convenience of the accused with the requirements of a fair trial.

8. Upon consideration of the materials on record, this Court finds that Petitioner No.1 is stated to be residing within the jurisdiction of the trial Court and carrying on

Page 2 of 4

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2026 16:29:46

business locally. No exceptional circumstance has been shown warranting complete dispensation of his personal appearance.

9. However, insofar as Petitioner No.2 is concerned, it is not disputed that he is working as a contractual labourer at Surat, Gujarat. Requiring his physical presence on each and every date would cause undue hardship and financial burden. The advancement of technology and the recognition of virtual participation in appropriate cases under the BNSS justify a pragmatic approach, particularly where the identity of the accused is not in dispute and his participation can be effectively secured through video conferencing.

10. Accordingly, while this Court is not inclined to grant complete exemption from appearance, the impugned orders are modified to the following extent:

(i) Petitioner No.1 shall appear before the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road in person on the date fixed by the trial Court and shall continue to remain present on such dates as may be directed by the learned trial Court.

(ii) Petitioner No.2 shall appear before the learned trial Court through virtual mode/video conferencing on the dates fixed in the case, subject to verification of his

Page 3 of 4

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2026 16:29:46

identity to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

(iii) The learned trial Court shall be at liberty to direct the personal appearance of Petitioner No.2 on any particular date if such presence is considered indispensable for the purpose of framing of notice/charge, examination under law, identification, compromise verification, or any other stage where physical presence is found necessary in the interest of justice.

(iv) Both Petitioners shall be represented through counsel on all dates of posting and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

(v) In the event of misuse of the liberty granted by this Court or non-cooperation with the proceedings, it shall be open to the learned trial Court to recall the benefit extended under this order.

11. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the impugned orders dated 06.03.2025 and 07.04.2026 stand modified.

12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

Sipun

Page 4 of 4