Petitioner already disobeyed his commitment to appear through his erstwhile Advocate.

The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.4247 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai has filed the above criminal original petition praying to set aside the order dated 8.1.2003 made in Crl.M.P.No.2716 of 2002 in the above C.C. and to allow him to be represented by his counsel under Section 205 Cr.P.C. and permit the counsel to receive copies on his behalf.

2. The petitioner would submit that he is arrayed as the accused in the said case for an alleged offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and that he is presently doing his advanced studies in Medicine in the United States of America after completing his MBBS at Hyderabad in India and the case has been registered on the complaint lodged by his wife with the All Women Police Station; that if the petitioner were to appear before the Court, he has to discontinue his higher studies in medicine and it is very difficult to get leave since the petitioner does not have any other source of income and has to study on the grant given by the University; that on the mis-representation of a Lawyer engaged by his father-in-law, earlier he addressed a letter to the Court below thereby undertaking to appear before the Court during March, 2003 and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order dated 8.1.2003 in Crl.M.P.No.2716 of 2003 had dismissed the petition filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C.

3. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent as well would only stick to the pleadings with no additional materials placed before this Court. On the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he would argue to the effect that it is purely a matter of discretion of the Court under Section 205 Cr.P.C., which has to be exercised in the given facts and circumstances of the case in hand and would pray to consider the inevitable circumstance of the petitioner being not in a position to appear before the Court since he is abroad. On the part of the learned counsel for the respondent, laying emphasis not only on the reasons assigned by the lower Court for dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 205 Cr.P.C. but also would insist on Section 273 Cr.P.C. wherein emphasis is laid for all the evidence to be taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding in the presence of the accused or when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent would pray to dismiss the above criminal original petition.

4. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the material placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what this Court is given to understand is that the petitioner, who is abroad in the USA, alleged to have been admitted in a University for Post Graduate studies on scholarship, has filed the petition before the trial Court in the case registered against him on the complaint lodged by his wife/the respondent herein for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC under Section 205 Cr.P.C. seeking to dispense with his personal attendance and to permit him to appear by his pleader not only on all dates of hearing but also to receive copies of documents on his behalf thereby meaning that he will not at all be attending any hearing during the entire proceeding of the case particularly during trial. In these circumstances, the only question that is to be decided is `whether the accused in a case of such nature as one in hand, whatever be the reason, be permitted to appear by his pleader on all hearings and if so, what would be the consequence of the trial held in such a manner?'

5. On a perusal of the records, it comes to be seen that already the petitioner has disowned the commitments of his earlier counsel stating that without his concurrence, the Advocate appointed by his father-in-law, has committed something thus disapproving and disowning all such acts done by the learned Advocate on hi