Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 1593
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
VINOD KUMAR SINHA, J.
Saket Kumar Singh S/o Devendra Prasad Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar and ors. - Respondent
Criminal Revision No.97 of 2018
Decided On : 04-12-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
The discretionary nature of Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the relevance of the accused's conduct in determining exemption from personal appearance.
Headnote:
Exemption - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 205, Indian Penal Code - 498A, 504, 506/34 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Cr. Appeal No. 1265 of 2017, as well as the decisions in the cases of Jayant Dang v. State of Bihar and Manish Gai vs. State of Bihar. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of Section 205 and the relevance of the accused's conduct in determining exemption from personal appearance. The court also highlighted the distinction between general directions and specific case facts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a revision application against the rejection of his prayer for exemption from personal appearance in a case related to allegations under Section 498A, 504, and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, a busy Company Secretary residing in New Delhi, sought exemption from appearing in court due to his professional commitments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's conduct, including non-appearance despite a direction to conclude the trial within four months, indicated an attempt to delay the proceedings. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code and upheld the rejection of the petitioner's exemption petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's request for exemption from personal appearance, the relevance of his conduct in the trial proceedings, and the applicability of specific legal provisions to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the discretionary nature of Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the relevance of the accused's conduct in determining exemption from personal appearance, and the distinction between general directions and specific case facts.
Final Decision: The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's exemption petition, emphasizing that the petitioner's conduct indicated an attempt to delay the trial proceedings. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail if desired, with a directive for prompt consideration and disposal of the bail application.
1. As both parties have appeared, this case has been taken up for disposal at the initial stage itself.
2. Petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 03.11.2017 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Patna in Kotwali (Adampur) P.S. Case No. 548 of 2015, G.R. No. 3271 of 2015 whereby and whereunder learned S.D.J.M., has been pleased to reject the prayer of the petitioner for exemption from personal appearance in the day-to-day proceeding in terms of provisions enumerated in Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’), because petitioner is residing at New Delhi and is a busy person, being Company Secretary and has to visit so many places, therefore, wants to remain present through lawyer to appear before the court when his appearance is necessary.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that Opposite Party No. 2, being the wife of the petitioner, has submitted a written application before the Officer-in-Charge of Kotwali (Adampur) Police Station, on the basis of which, present case i.e., Kotwali (Adampur) P.S. Case No. 548 of 2015, has been instituted alleging that as per the order of Smt. Khushboo Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, she came at Bhagalpur on 02.09.2015 by car from Patna at 10:00 P.M. with her husband, who is the petitioner, and on her arrival, the accused persons started abusing her with filthy language and assaulted her saying as to why she has come and asked her to withdraw the case. It is also alleged that they demanded money to purchase a flat and to withdraw the case and until she not bring money from her father, she has been subjected to torture and on that the present case has been lodged.
4. The police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet under Section 498A, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code upon which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur has taken cognizance.
5. It further appears from perusal of the petition that in the meantime, the O.P. No. 2 filed a miscellaneous petition before this Court for transferring of the case from Bhagalpur to Patna in Cr. Misc. No. 55679 of 2015, which was allowed vide order dated 22.04.2016 by this Court, as such this case has been transferred to the file of learned S.D.J.M., Patna.
6. It further appears that the petitioner has filed a petition dated 16.10.2017 to exempt his personal appearance from day-to-day proceeding in terms of Section 205 of the Code and to allow him to represent through his lawyer as he is a Company Secretary and has to be move many places and it is difficult for him to appear day-to-day proceeding of the court and he undertakes to appear physically whenever his personal appearance is required. It further appears that a rejoinder to the same was filed by the O.P. No. 2. After hearing the parties, the learned S.D.J.M. vide impugned order dated 03.11.2017 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for exemption under Section 205 of the Code.
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the present application has been filed on the ground that this Court, vide order dated 24.04.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 55679 of 2015, while transferring the case from Bhagalpur to Patna, has observed as follows:-
“The Court at Patna shall not insist on personal appearance of the accused persons, apart from the stage of charge, 313 Cr.P.C. and judgment and conclude the case positively within a period of four months on receipt of the records of the case.”
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Cr. Appeal No. 1265 of 2017, has given the following direction:
“Personal appearance of all family members and particularly all outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial.”
9. It is further contended that this Hon’ble Court in cases of Jayant Dang v. State of Bihar reported
