SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2601

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. 
R.Martin – Appellant
Versus 
Princy Martin - Respondents
Crl.O.P Nos.12639 and 12641 of 2024 and Crl.M.P Nos.7829 & 7830 of 2024 
Decided on : 22-07-2024 

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Adithiyan For Mr.R.Prabhakaran
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Mohandass For M/s.Swaminathan Law Associates

Dispensing with personal appearance requires specific requests and necessary details under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; the Magistrate has discretion in permitting representation.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 205 - Domestic Violence Act - Petitioners, being senior citizens, sought to dispense with their personal appearance due to health issues - The Court upheld the trial Court's order to return the petition for not filling in the necessary details required by Section 205 - The petitioners were instructed to file a fresh petition with all required details. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Appearance of Accused - The Court ruled that the absence of accused must be specifically requested with proper justification - The Magistrate has discretion to permit representation by a pleader or direct personal attendance if necessary. (Paras 3-4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners appealed against the IX Metropolitan Magistrate's order that returned their petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C for not being in proper form and without their appearance, despite being senior citizens with health issues.

Findings of Court:
The trial Court acted correctly in returning the petition, as it lacked necessary detail, and no error was found in its order.

Issues: The main issue was whether the trial Court erred in returning the petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C without proper notice to the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that a formal request is essential when seeking to dispense with personal appearance under Section 205, affirming that the trial Court's discretion in such matters must not be interfered with if justified.

Result: Criminal Original Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petition filed against docket order. (Para 1)
2. petitioners claim order was erroneous. (Para 2)
3. conditions for section 205 cr.p.c. requests. (Para 3 , 4)
4. no error found in trial court's order. (Para 5)
5. petitions dismissed; liberty to refile. (Para 6)

ORDER :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. These two petitions are filed by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the docket order passed by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet that the petition filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C was returned for not filling up the blanks and filed without the appearance of the petitioners.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the order passed under Section 12 of the DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT itself is erroneous, since it was passed without notice and the petitioners herein, being senior citizens not in a position to appear in person to attend the Court. Hence, they have filed a petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. However, the trial Court has returned the petition pointing out certain defects without considering the reasons stated in the petition.

3. This Court finds that the petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C filed in a printed format requesting to dispense with the appearance of the petitioners since they are senior citizens and are having health issues. The Code of Criminal Procedure permits the absence of accused dispensing with their personal appearance under two circumstances:

i) under Section 317 of Cr.P.C on the particular ground, if the petitioner is unable to present, he can seek for leave of absence.

ii) If for entire proceedings, the accused wants to be represented through their pleader and seek dispense with his personal appearance, he can resort to Section 205 Cr.P.C.

4. When the petition is filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C., there must be a specific request seeking permission to abstain and in his absence, the pleader shall undertakes to appear on the hearing dates. When such petition is filed, the Magistrate shall conduct enquiry and on his discretion, he may dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit the pleader to appear on behalf of the accused and also at any stage, the Magistrate may direct the personal appearance of the accused, if necessary.

5. Reading the petition filed by the petitioners, this Court finds that nothing stated in it to number the petition for consideration under Section 205 Cr.P.C. Hence, the trial Court has rightly returned the petition to represent the same with details and also insisted upon the appearance of the accused. This Court finds that no error or illegality in the said docket order.

6. Accordingly, these two Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh petition with all necessary details to satisfy the ingredients of Section 205 Cr.P.C and seek for redressal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top