ORDER

The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr. PC impugning order dated 25.04.2016 passed by Smt. Seema Kumari, Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 29254 (C) of 2014 whereby she has rejected the application of the petitioners filed under Section 205 Cr. PC for exemption from personal appearance.

2. The factual matrix as emerging from the record is that a criminal complaint bearing Complaint Case No. 29254 (C) of 2014 has been filed by the complainant (OP. No. 2 herein) against the petitioners for proceeding against them for offence punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 IPC alleging that one Renu Kumari working as maid in the house of the complainant (OP. No. 2 herein) had gone to watch ‘Ravan Wadh’ in Gandhi Maidan, Patna on 03.10.2014 and died in the stampede. The complainant performed her last rites without taking a single paisa from the Government. However, on 07.10.2024 when the petitioner was reading Hindustan Newspaper, he came across a news which read that Raju Kumar @ Rajkumar had taken away the compensation money of his maid. The Complainant got greatly hurt and his reputation was damaged. The accused persons who are petitioners herein published the news without making any effort to know the truth, due to which, the reputation of the complainant, Raju Kumar @ Rajkumar was let down in the eye of society.

3. It further transpires that after examining three enquiry witnesses, it was found by the Ld. Magistrate that prima facie case is made out under Section 500 IPC against the accused persons who are petitioners herein and accordingly, she took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC and issued summons to the petitioners and thereafter on account of failure of the petitioners to appear, bailable warrant has also been issued against them. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed their application under Section 205 Cr. PC for exemption from their personal appearance. However, their applications have been rejected by Ld. Magistrate holding that the accused persons are neither old nor ill nor pardanashin ladies and they have not appeared before this court even once hampering the court proceeding.

4. Heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for O.P. No. 2, who is complainant in the court below.

5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners Shri Rana Vikram Singh submits that the alleged offence against the petitioners is petty in nature and it comes under summons case and it is a fit case to exercise descretionary power by this Court under section 205 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners. He further submits that initially summons was issued against the petitioner and later on Bailable Warrant has been issued though the summons was not served upon the petitioners before the issuance of the Bailable Warrant. He further submits that even otherwise, the issuance of warrant is not a legal bar to the exercise of power under Section 205 Cr.P.C. if the accused is not taken into custody in execution of the warrant. He relies on Sumit Bose @ Sumit Ranjan vs. State of Bihar [2002 (3) PLJR 208]. He further submits that the accused/petitioners are employees of M/s Hindustan Media Venture Ltd, a Company engaged in the business of printing, publication and distribution of the “Hindustan” Newspaper, Patna Edition. Petitioner No.1 holds very crucial responsibility in the newspaper organization and has to coordinate with his colleagues in the newspaper establishment and other people for the purpose of collection, selection and publication of news every day and having very busy schedule throughout the day and his absence from duty will affect the publication of newspaper adversely. Petitioner No. 2 is a senior Resident Editor of Hindustan, Hindi Daily, Patna and has to supervise and guide all the editorial Members. Hence, his continuous presence is deeply required for smooth publication of news of public importance. He has also been given responsibili