p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.74 of 2025 Archana Sahu @ Kumari Sahu @ Nilu Sahu and another …. Petitioner(s) Mr. K. Pattanaik, Advocate -versus- Premraj Sahu and another …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. U. R. Jena, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 03.02.2025 01. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack in 1.C.C. Case No.113 of 2023, whereby their application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. has been turned down by a reasoned order. 3. The learned trial Court rejected the application of the petitioners inter alia observing as under:- <Cognizance of offences u/s 420/341/506/34 IPC, 1860 has been taken in this case. The Complainant has adduced sufficient materials to make out a prima facie case against the accused persons. The allegations made are serious in nature wherein the prime accused has beguiled the Complainant to part with a considerable sum of 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) under a false pretext of marriage and thereafter both the accused persons have threatened the Complainant of killing him if he pursued the matter. Accordingly the evidence likely p. 2 to be tendered will be of such a nature that it will be desirable to be recorded in the presence of the accused persons. It is noted that the Petitioners have never appeared either before this Court or before the Court of the Ld. S.D.J.M., Bolangir when it was in seisin of the matter. Significantly, as the prime accused is a Court staff, she is expected to show utmost respect to the procedure established by law and not avoid appearing before this Court particularly when the matter has been transferred to this Court at her instance. It should not appear to the general public that law can be bent to suit the interests of Court insiders who may choose to not appear at all at their discretion. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lily Begum v. Joy Chandra Nagbanshi reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 303, "If such a privilege, in our opinion, is given to a accused in a case of this nature, people will lose their confidence in the administration of justice." So it only seems just and proper that the accused persons should appear before this Court and pray for regular bail and after framing of charges, if they are unable to appear before this Court on any particular date then remedy is available to them u/s 317 Cr.P.C., 1973. Moreover with technological advancement, they also have the facility to appear before this Court through video conference without having to come here physically on each date, which the accused being a Court staff must be familiar with. In view of the reasons discussed above, the petition u/s 205 Cr.P.C., 1973 stands rejected, being devoid of merits. The Petitioners are directed to appear before this Court on 23.08.2024 positively.= 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is a court employee, who is posted at Berhampur District Court, whereas the petitioner No.2 is working in a private company and posted in Chennai. The proceeding is going on before the learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack. Therefore, physical presence of p. 3 the petitioners is not possible on every date of hearing. Hence, they moved an application, which has been turned down. 5. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners may have merit but the fact remains that the petitioners have not even appeared once before the court in response to the summon. They shall appear before the Court as and when they are required and whenever there is a difficulty in appearing physically, they may move appropriate application before the learned Court below under Section 205 or 317 Cr.P.C. 6. I find no reason to interfere with the matter at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to move fresh application before the learned Court below whenever it is necessitated. If such application is moved before the learned Court below, the same shall be considered afresh on its own merit. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners on instruction from his clients submits that his clients would be appearing/surrendering before the Court below on or before 05.03.2025 and resort to the remedy available to them under law. They also seek liberty to move application under Section 205 Cr.P.C on the subsequent dates of hearing, if necessary. p. 4 8. Subject to the petitioners appearing/surrendering before the Court below on or before 05.03.2025 and resort to the remedy available to them under law, no coercive action shall be taken against them till 05.03.2025. 9. With this observation, the CRLMC is disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna