The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2233 of 2025 Harbinder Singh Deengra ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Anup Udaya Senapati -versus- State Of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opp. Parties Represented By Adv. – U.R. Jena, A.S.C. Tirth Kumar Sahu, Adv. for O.P. No.2
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 21.08.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.2. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which corresponds to 528 of the B.N.S.S., the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court with a prayer to set aside the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher in 1.C.C. Case No.18 of 2009 whereby the learned trial court has rejected the petition filed by the Petitioner Page 1 of 5. Order No. 02. to dispense with his personal appearance at the stage of accused statement by invoking the provision contained in the proviso to clause-b of Section 313 (1). 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the present case arises out of a complaint case registered for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He further submitted that after examination of the complainant witnesses, the case was posted for recording of the accused statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. At that stage, the Petitioner filed an application under the proviso to Section 313 (1)(b) to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused-petitioner on the ground that the personal appearance of the accused-petitioner has earlier been dispensed with under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. He further contended that such prayer was made to dispense with the personal appearance on the health ground of the Petitioner. However, the learned trial court rejected the prayer of the Petitioner on the ground that no supporting medical documents have been filed by the Petitioner in support of his contention. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order is highly illegal and arbitrary, as such, the same is liable to be quashed. 5. Mr. T.K. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 on the other hand contended that the application filed at the instance of the Petitioner is a vague one. He further submitted that although the accused-Petitioner had taken the ground of illness, however, the same was not supported by any medical records. In such view of the matter, Mr. Sahu, learned counsel contended that the learned trial court has not committed Page 2 of 5. any illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioner vide order dated 09.05.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that since the present case arises out of a complaint case, the State has no role in the same. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2, this Court finds that the issue that is required to be decided in the present application is with regard to the validity of order dated 09.05.2025 at Annexure-4. The learned trial court has rejected the prayer of the accused-petitioner to dispense with the appearance of the accused-petitioner for recording of the accused statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. vide order dated 09.05.2025. On a perusal of the provisions contained in Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., it appears that the proviso states that in a summons case where the court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b) thereof. 8. On a close reading of the aforesaid proviso, it appears that the provision deliberately uses the expression, “may”. Therefore, use of such word “may” confers discretion on the learned trial court to the extent that depending of the nature of the case and subject to satisfaction of further conditions, the trial court can take recourse of its power to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused in a summons cases. However, where the nature of the case is such that the it demands the examination of the accused, the trial court has ample power to record the Page 3 of 5. accused statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 9. In the aforesaid context in an identical scenario, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was considering a similar issue in Satya Paul vs. State of Odisha reported in 2024 (I) OLR-479. The learned Coordinate Bench while deciding the issue raised in that application with regard to interpretation of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has observed that the accused can very well be examined through virtual mode in the event it is found that he is prevented by any sufficient cause, including the health ground, to appear before the learned trial court for any justifiable reason. At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly submitted that the Petitioner has no objection if his statement is recorded through virtual mode. In fact, this Court has prepared a set of guidelines for examination of the witnesses through virtual mode and the same is being encouraged to ensure that the trials are not protracted unnecessarily due to non-appearance of the witnesses. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, this Court modifies the order dated 09.05.2025 passed in 1.C.C. Case No.18 of 2009 to the extent that the learned trial court shall record the accused statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. through virtual mode. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture assures complete support and cooperation by the accused-petitioner during trial and during recording of such accused statement through virtual mode. 11. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the case is of the year 2009, the learned trial court is directed to make every endeavour to expedite the trial and conclude the same as Page 4 of 5. expeditiously as possible. 12. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CRLMC stands disposed of. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 25-Aug-2025 11:52:49 Page 5 of 5.