Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3783 of 2025 Manorama Saw @ Sawn ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Suryasnata Mohapatra -versus- State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – Ms. B.K. Sahu, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 19.09.2025 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which corresponds to Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Balaosre in C.T. Case No.631 of 2022. 4. The above noted C.T. Case has been registered on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged before Sahadevkhunta Police Station bearing Sahadevkhunta P.S. Case No.219 of 2022 for commission of alleged Page 2 of 4. offences under Section 498-A/294/323/307/506/34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the present Petitioner is no way connected with the allegation made in the F.I.R. He further contended that the present Petitioner, who is a lady, has been implicated on the basis of the allegation of the Informant that her husband has kept physical relationship with the present Petitioner. He further submitted that since the Petitioner resides at Bangalore and works there, it is difficult for her to appear before the trial court on each and every date of posting of the case. Accordingly, the Petitioner moved an application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court for dispensing with her personal attendance on 06.08.2025. Such application having been rejected vide order dated 25.08.2025, the Petitioner has assailed the same in the present application on the ground that the trial court has not applied the principle laid down under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. It is also alleged that the application of the Petitioner has been rejected in an illegal, arbitrary and highhanded manner. 6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it was brought to the notice of the trial court that the Petitioner is residing at Bangalore at the moment and works as a Software Engineer in a company at Bangalore. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in the event the Petitioner is asked to appear before the trial court on each and every date fixed, it would cause serious prejudice and inconvenience to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner moved the above noted application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. In course of argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the Page 3 of 4. settled position of law with regard to the applicability of Section 205 of Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore on the ground that the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the order. She further submitted that in the F.I.R., the principal allegation has been made against the Petitioner to the effect that the husband of the Informant has kept illicit relationship with the present Petitioner. Thus, it was argued that foundation of the allegation is the conduct of the Petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the present Petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case, further on a careful consideration of the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 under Annexure-4, this Court observes that the fact with regard to the Petitioner’s employment at Bangalore as a Software Engineer was brought to the attention of the learned trial court and it was also mentioned that she is residing at Bangalore. Learned trial court, on a careful appraisal of the facts, has come to a prima facie conclusion that the Petitioner is the main root of the occurrence and her presence on each and every date of trial is necessary and that the proceeding in the present case in not summery in nature. Accordingly, the application has been rejected by the trial court. 9. On a careful analysis of the impugned order dated 25.08.2025, this Court is of the view that the present Petitioner, who is facing the trial as an accused, has not been arrested in the present case as she Page 4 of 4. has been released under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. 10. Considering the aforesaid factual background and on a careful analysis of the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Balaosre in C.T. Case No.631 of 2022, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing such order. However, while disposing of this application, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to move an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. for dispensing with her personal appearance. In such eventuality, the learned trial court shall consider the same liberally keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner resides in Bangalore. 11. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Debasis