The Magistrate has discretion to exempt the accused from personal appearance in appropriate cases, and insistence on appearance should be necessary for the interests of justice.

1. The sole accused in C. C. No. 214 of 1982 (now numbered as L. P. 4 of 1983) before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha is the petitioner. The petition was filed under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code under the following circumstances.

2. From April 1982 onwards the petitioner is in Switzerland, Before going to Switzerland he happened to issue a cheque in favour of one George for Rs. 20,000/- or so. That cheque happened to be dishonoured when presented. George filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha. The Magistrate forwarded the same to the Police for investigation under S.156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. After investigation the above case was charge-sheeted against the petitioner for an offence punishable under S.420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. When summons was issued the petitioner was abroad and therefore, it was returned unserved. Thereafter warrant was issued from court. That also met with the same fate. The Court informed the Passport authorities, resulting in the passport of the petitioner being impounded. Petitioner says that he came to know of the pendency of the case itself only after his passport was impounded as requisitioned by the court.

4. On getting the above information petitioner paid the entire amount due to Mr. George and bad the matter settled with him. Since his passport remains impounded he is not in a position to come to India. He engaged a counsel and on 28-9-1985 filed the following petitions before court through his counsel:

1. Petition for exemption from personal appearance and permission to appear through pleader;

2. Petition for advancing the posting of the case;

3. Petition requesting that warrant may be recalled;

4. Petition for permission to compound the offences; and

5. A joint petition along with the defacto complainant compounding the offence.

The Magistrate rejected all the petitions observing that they cannot be favourably considered without the petitioner (accused) appearing before court. It is against these orders that the petitioner approached this court seeking the aid of its inherent jurisdiction.

5. As earlier stated the offence involved in the case is one punishable under S.420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is an offence which is compoundable by the person cheated, of course, with the permission of court. Ordinarily when the affected parties have decided to compound the matter between themselves permission required from the court will be refused only in appropriate cases when public interest or ends of justice demand the same In this case there is absolutely nothing indicating that it may not be desirable in the interest of justice to accord permission to compound the offence. What was involved between the parties was only a money transaction. The affected person received the amount and decided to settle the matter. There is nothing to indicate that the compromise was to defeat the purpose of law. Normally in such a case courts will only be inclined to accord permission.

6. The very existence of the courts is for dispensation of justice. The process of courts should not be used for harassment of litigants. The insistence on the appearance of parties before court need be only if it becomes absolutely necessary for some purpose. Courts are entitled to compel the appearance of the accused. But such insistence should not be for the mere pleasure of the accused being seen in the dock. Sometimes his presence may be absolutely essential, say for instance, for questioning him or for himself being identified by witnesses. Insistence on his appearance in such cases may be alright. To insist on his appearance on a day when his appearance has nothing to do with the progress of the case will only result in unnecessary harassment, especially when he has some inconvenience and his counsel is prepared to represent him. In this case that is what actually happened. The petitioner who is the accused before the Magistrate is alrea