[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dillip Kumar Dash vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party (S) on 13 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.752 of 2026
Dillip Kumar Dash .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sanjit Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party (s)
Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
13.03.2026
Order No.
01.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to quash the
order of rejection dated 13.07.2023 passed by the learned SDJM, Puri in
ICC Case No.197 of 2022 under Annexure-2.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the Petitioner who is the Power of
Attorney holder of a land at Kumbharpada bearing Plot No.485 of area
Ac.0.024 dec. intended to sale the aforesaid property and registered an
agreement in favour of one Shyamsundar Mohapatra and taken
Rs.6,00,000/- as advance out of total consideration amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- which was agreed between both the parties. But, when
the said Shyamsundar Agarwal arranged rest Rs. 14,00,000/- and called
the petitioner for execution of Sale Deed, the petitioner was avoided
and given a plea that he has some disturbances with his family. With
much persuasion, the petitioner has issued a post dated cheque of
Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant and the same was bounced on
24.06.2022. After due procedure, the complainant has filed a complaint
case under Section 138 of N.I. Act bearing ICC Case No.197 of 2022.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was
appeared through his advocate. However, due to non-cooperation of
the advocate, NBW was issued against the Petitioner on 28.02.2023.
Hence, the Petitioner filed a petition under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C.
for dispensing with his personal appearance. But, the same was
rejected on 13.07.2023. The relevant portion of the order is extracted
hereinbelow: -
"It has also been observed that while dealing
with a petition U/s. 205 Cr.P.C. it is to be seen
whether personal appearance of the accused would
cause serious difficulty and inconvenience and the
comparative advantage would not overweigh non-
appearance. However, facts and circumstances of
the cases under consideration of Hon'ble Courts are
different from that of the present case as in the
former an N.B.W. had been issued against the
accused due to his nonappearance on the date fixed,
whereas, in the instant case the accused appeared
through his Counsel before this Court and took
several times for his physical appearance but didn't
appear. So, the accused of this case is not entitled to
benefits of Debashish Samantray case and
Damodar Mishra case being at a different footing.
Undoubtedly, mere pendency of an NBW can't be a
instant case is lingering since 31.01.2023 for
production of the accused and the accused is
playing with the court by showing his non-
cooperation in progress of the case. In this
circumstance, it appears that the accused has
caused much delay in progress of this case and
trying to continue the same practice. Therefore, it
can be concluded that the accused may not suffer
much inconvenience for his appearance, rather the
prosecution would be affected if the case is left
delayed for the accused.
Hence, considering the nature and gravity of
the offence as well as attitude of the accused
towards court of law, this Court is not inclined to
allow the petition U/s. 205 of Cr.P.C. As such the
petition U/s. 205 of Cr.P.C is rejected."
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State, there appears no cogent ground to interfere with
the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the learned SDJM, Puri in ICC
Case No.197 of 2022 rejecting the petition filed by the Petitioner under
Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. for dispensing with his personal appearance.
6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the order
of rejection dated 13.07.2023 passed by the learned SDJM, Puri in ICC
Case No.197 of 2022.
7. However, the Petitioner is directed to surrender before the
learned SDJM, Puri within a period of ten days from today. In such
event, the learned SDJM, Puri shall grant bail in accordance with the
law.
8. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
