Navin Sinha, J.

1. This order shall dispose of Cr. Misc. No. 29832/2000 preferred by one Jayant Dang and Cr. Misc. No. 34712/2000 preferred by one Prabhat Ranjan. Cognizance having been taken against both the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 1558(C) of 1998, both the petitioners preferred application u/s. 205, Cr PC for dispensing with their personal appearance. By an order dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Patna the prayer for grant of relief u/s. 205, Cr PC has been declined. Thus the petitioners who are impleaded as accused No. 2 and accused No. 6 respectively in the complaint petition have approached this Court.

2. The allegations as made out in Complaint Case No. 1558(C) of 1998 for the purposes of the present application may be stated succinctly. Suffice it to say that the opposite party as complainant instituted the present complaint based upon what was originally a commercial interaction by him with regard to taking of a loan from M/s Escorts Finance Limited, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, situated at New Delhi. Both the present petitioners here are the officers of the said company. The petitioner in the first case is said to be the Managing Director and the petitioner in the second case is said to be one of the officers of the company. The complainant alleged that he had applied for a loan/finance to the company, M/s Escorts Finance Ltd. through its franchisee A.P. Fin. Leasing (India) Limited situate at Maurya Complex, Patria for purchase of a car. The latter was the authorised franchisee of the aforesaid company impleaded as accused No. 1 in the complaint. The opposite party No. 2 in pursuance of having applied for such loan gave certain post-dated cheques. The opposite party No. 2 never received the loan amount and requested return of the postdated cheques alongwith other papers signed by him for grant of loan. The opposite party No. 2 then obtained a loan from other sources and purchased a car. The car was allegedly seized by the musclemen at the behest of the petitioners and others and released only after the opposite party No. 2 was forced to sign certain cheques. The payments of these cheques was then stopped by the opposite party. The complainant thus alleged that he was wrongly being harassed for the loan that he had never taken and money had been realized from him illegally by fabrication of documents of loan etc. On the basis of allegations cognizance was taken under Secs. 348, 384, 409, 420, 467 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

3. The lower Court records had been summoned earlier by an order dated 3.7.2003 of this Court. The parties thus made their submissions on the basis of the lower Court record in which the narration of dates and events hereinafter was not disputed by the Counsel appearing for the parties. Summons were issued on 2.9.99 to both the petitioners. No service report with regard to the summons was available on record till 14.12.1999. On 6.1.2000 accused No. 6, the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 34712/2000 entered appearance and filed an application under Sec. 205, Cr PC. No service report with regard to summons sent to the petitioners were still available. At this stage the Court below proceeded to issue bailable warrant of arrest against the accused No. 2, the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 29832/2000. Having been made aware of the bailable warrant issued against him the said petitioner entered appearance on 7.3.2000 and filed an application for dispensing with his personal appearance u/s. 205, Cr PC.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Shri B.P. Pandey, appearing on behalf of both the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were employees of a Finance Company situate at New Delhi. The allegations against them in the complaint were omnibus in nature and there were no individualistic allegations against them in respect of which cognizance had been taken. It was submitted that the complaint merely recited that the petitioners were directly responsible an