Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2079 of 2025 1) N.v.jagannath Rao ..... Petitioners 2) Satya Prakash Panda 3) Chandra Dhawaja Panda Represented By Adv. - Prasanna Kumar Mishra -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – Ms. B.K.Sahu, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 31.07.2025 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners seek to invoke the inherent jurisdiction power of this Court to quash order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gunupur rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners before the learned trial court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, referring to the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 under Annexure-5, contended that the learned trial court has illegally rejected the application of the Page 2 of 3. petitioners under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. Further, referring to the aforesaid impugned order learned counsel for the petitioners contended that earlier the petitioners had approached this Court by filling CRLMC No.1644 of 2024 which was disposed of on 07.05.2024. Thereby allowing the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 to appear through their counsel. It is further observed that the Petitioner No.2 & 3 shall comply with a necessary requirement under the law at the stage of committal and assured the Court that after committal they would appear before the learned trial court i.e. the Court of Sessions, Gunupur without fail. Accordingly, the Petitioner No.1 was given liberty to accept the copies of the charge sheet on behalf of Petitioner No.2 & 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture further contended that after conviction of the place of Court of Sessions the petitioners moves another application under Section 205 to permit them to represent their counsels, the same having been rejected the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present application. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the prayer of the petitioners on the ground that in cases sessions the presence of the petitioners are required during trial. Therefore, the application filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. is completely misconceived. In Such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing order dated 21.04.2025. 6. On a close scrutiny of the order dated 21.04.2025 this Court observes that in the previous application filed before this Court bearing CRLMC No.1644 of 2024, this Court vide order dated 07.05.2024 had allowed the petitioners to be represented through their counsel subject to condition that the petitioners shall appear in Page 3 of 3. person after commitment of the case before the Court of sessions. Contrary to such conditional order, the petitioners, after commitment of the case has again filed another application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. to dispense with their personal appearance. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken the ground that the petitioners are all senior citizens and in the event they are compelled to appear before the Court, the same would cause prejudice to them. 7. On a careful analysis of the background facts, further keeping in view the order passed earlier by this Court and on a careful analysis of the provision contained in 205 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated 21.04.2025 at Annexure-5 to the present application. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the same does not require any interference by this Court, at this stage. However, while disposing of the present application, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move an application under Section 317 on a particular date. In such eventuality, the learned trial court shall consider such application keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are senior citizens and they shall not be asked to appear unnecessarily if their appearance is not require during trial. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC application stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi