Kasliwal, J. - (1.) This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against an order of learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gangapur City, dated 7 August, 1982. The Non-Petitioner Moti Lal filed a complaint against 4 accused persons including the three petitioners, who are ladies. The trial Court registered a case under section 323,324 and 451 IPC. The trial court then issued bailable warrants against all the accused persons and in pursuance of which accused Madan Mohan appeared before the trial court on 7th August, 1982. On that day, the complainant was not present and his personal attendance was dispensed with for that day. All the accused persons were also represented through their counsel. On behalf of the present petitioners an application was submitted under section 205 Cr.P C. for granting of exemption from personal attendance and to be represented through , the counsel. The learned trial court dismissed the said application by observing J that the grounds were mentioned in the application for exemption were not sufficient for granting exemption. After dismissing the application filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. the learned trial court passed an order for summoning the petitioner Mst. Kaushaliya and Mst. Lalita by warrant of arrest. As regards petitioner Vimlesh it was directed that she may be summoned by a bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 5000/-.
(2.) I have perused the application filed on behalf of the petitioners under section 205 Cr. P.C. for granting exemption from personal attendance. It has been mentioned in the said application that the petitioners were pardhanashin ladies and it was not customary in their family to go in the courts. It has been further mentioned that after framing of the charge, if necessary the applicants would be produced in court but at this stage there was no necessity for their personal appearance in the court. It was also mentioned in the application that Km. Lalita was an unmarried girl and in case she would be directed to appear in the court, it would mar her future prospects of marriage. No reply was filed to the aforesaid application by the complainant denying the averments made in such application on behalf of the accused petitioners. The case has been registered only under sections 323, 324 and 451 IPC. So far even charge has not been framed in the case and it is no where the case of the complainant that presence of the accused petitioners would be necessary for the purpose of their identification. Admittedly, the parties are neighbours and evidence can be lad by the complainant even in absence of the accused petitioners.
(3.) Thus, taking in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the learned trial court was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the applicants under section 205 Cr.P.C. The order passed by the learned trial court dated 7th August, 1982, is, therefore, set aside. The accused-petitioners, namely Mst. Kaushaliya, Mst. Vimlesh and Km. Lalita are allowed to appear through their counsel in the criminal case No. 360/1981 Moti Lal v. Madan Mohan and others pending for trial in the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City. In case the trial Court after framing charge in the case, if any, considers it necessary that the presence of all or any one of the accused petitioners is necessary in the case, then he would be free to pass an appropriate order in this regard.;