- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.6.2015 passed on the exemption application by the A.C.J.M. Court No. 12, Azamgarh, in Complaint Case No. 744 of 2014 (Shashi Bhushan Gupta Vs. Shiv Prasad Gupta and others), under Sections 498-A, 504 I.P.C. and D.P. Act, P.S. Didarganj District Azamgarh, as well as the order dated 29.6.2015 passed by Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision (Karma Devi Vs. State of U.P. and another). Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the application was moved before the Court concerned to exempt the personal appearance of the applicant under Section 205 Cr.P.C. through counsel but the concerned Magistrate rejected the said application on insufficient ground. It was also submitted that Section 205 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that in certain circumstances, while issuing the summons, the Court dealing with the matter may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal appearance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. It was further submitted that the impugned orders suffer from illegality or infirmity.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on the following case laws in support of his submissions: 1.Kaveri @ Benga and another Vs. State, 1995 CrLJ 224 (Orissa HIGH COURT). 2. Manoj Narayan Aggarwal Vs. Shasi Aggarwal and others Criminal Appeal No. 725 of 2009 along with Criminal Appeals Nos. 726, 727, 728, 729 of 2009 decided on 15.4.2009 by the Supreme Court of India. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. argued that provisions enumerated in the Section 205 Cr.P.C. are discretionary. It is for the Magistrate concerned in the given situation to exempt the personal appearance. It was further argued that order passed by the concerned Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully including the above mentioned case laws. A perusal of the record goes to show that applicant was summoned to face the trial for the offence under Section 498-A, 504 I.P.C. and Section D.P. Act. It also appears that exemption application taking recourse of the provision of Section 205 Cr.P.C. was moved on 17.6.2015 before the Court concerned on the ground that applicant was old and sick person and unable to attend the Court, therefore, her personal appearance be exempted through counsel. The concerned Magistrate after hearing the parties rejected the said application on the ground that the applicant has not obtained bail in the matter.;