Arun Kumar Jha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. This application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 27.03.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No. 2341 (c)/2011 registered for the offences under Section 201, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dispensing with their personal appearance/ attendance in the aforesaid complaint case.

3. The case of the prosecution as per the complaint petition is that the complainant had earlier filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 242 (c) of 2007 against the petitioners no. 1 to 5 wherein the cognizance was taken under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further alleged that an anticipatory bail application was filed by the petitioners no. 1 to 5 vide A.B.P. No. 7063 of 2007 along with certain annexures. It is further alleged that on the basis of certain forged documents, such as, Prospective Customer’s Proforma and customer ledger report, the petitioners were able to get anticipatory bail in December, 2007. It is further alleged that the petitioners had filed false and forged documents of non-existing firms only with the intention to secure bail. It is further alleged that the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 had also filed a quashing application, against the said Complaint Case No. 2242 (c) of 2007, being Cr. Misc. No. 48839 of 2007 before this Court wherein the affidavit was sworn by the present petitioner no. 6 and in the said application again the said forged documents were filed which were filed in the said A.B.P. No. 7063 of 2007. It is also alleged that such forged documents were also filed before the Apex Court as well in SLP (Crl) No. 9371/2008. The cognizance has been taken by the learned trial court on 15.03.2016. Thereafter, a petition dated 20.09.2016 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners before the learned trial court for dispensing with their personal appearance/ attendance in the aforesaid complaint case, which was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 27.03.2017. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 27.03.2017 passed by the learned trial court, the petitioners have preferred the present application.

4. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any crime. Neither any specific role has been assigned nor any specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioners in any of the complaints filed by the complainant. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that the petitioners are admittedly high ranking officials of the Relaxo Footwear Limited, a company of world repute in its integrity and commitment. The petitioners are staying in New Delhi and on account of their job responsibilities, they have to regularly travel at different places in India and abroad for official work. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the work of the petitioners would be badly affected and hampered if their appearance is not dispensed with and they are required to attend the court on regular basis. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that no useful purpose would be served if the petitioners are asked to attend the daily court proceedings. The petitioners are, however, ready to abide by the conditions imposed u/s 205 of Cr.P.C. Learned senior counsel has also submitted that the present complaint arises out of the earlier complaint case which is per-se false and would come within the realm of civil dispute between the opposite party no.2 and the company as well as its officials. Moreover, for using forged and fabricated documents in the courts of law, the