Common Order:

As the issue involved in both the Criminal Petitions is common in nature, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These Criminal Petitions have been filed to quash the docket orders dated 05.05.2022 and 21.06.2022 passed in CC No.2 of 2020 (Old CC No.358 of 2012) on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sattenapalli, Guntur district.

3. Originally, a charge sheet was filed as against the petitioner herein/A1 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was numbered as CC No.358 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

4. In the said Calendar Case, petitioner herein/A.1 filed Crl.MP No.514 of 2016 to dispense with his personal attendance and permit Sri N. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate, who is holding Special Vakalat, to represent on his behalf. Petitioner herein also filed Crl.MP No.515 of 2016 to record his appearance and recall the NBW pending against him. The learned Magistrate, by a common order dated 18.03.2016, allowed both the said Crl.MPs with the following observations.

“In the result, both petitions vide Crl.MP No.514 of

2016 and Crl.MP No.515 of 2016 in CC No.358 of 2012 pending on the file of this Court are allowed and NBW dated 16.12.2015 issued by this Court is hereby recalled. In the same way, the petitioner/A1 is directed to appear in person along with A2 and A3 on 21.03.2016 to answer Section 239 Cr.P.C. examination and to answer the charge that may be levelled against him. Subsequent to that, the presence of A1 is dispensed and Sri N. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate is permitted to appear on behalf of A1 after filing a special vakalat under due process of law. However, A1 shall appear before this Court after completion of trial under Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination. In case of any contingency, he may file a petition to dispense with his presence to answer Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination and the same can be answered through his counsel Srinivasa Reddy. However, A1 shall file an affidavit that he will not plead prejudice because of his non-examination, personally and Section 313 Cr.P.C. Both petitions are disposed of accordingly.”

5. It is pertinent to mention here that trial went on in C.C.No.358 of 2012. Thereafter, an application was filed by the prosecution to add offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC as against the petitioner herein and 2 others. At that stage, since the accused Nos.1 to 3 were not appearing before the trial Court, the trial Court passed a docket order dated 05.05.2022 observing that “A1 to A3 absent. Petition filed and allowed. Since Special Vakalat holder of A1 i.e., counsel, filed petition to condone the absence of A1. The Special Vakalat is ceased and A1 is directed to appear hereinafter. For hearing of prosecution call on 11.05.2022”. Simultaneously, on 21.06.2022, learned Magistrate passed a docket order stating that “A1 absent. Petition filed and dismissed. Hence, NBW against A1. A2 and A3 present. Call on 11.07.2022”. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Petitions have been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein submitted that the petitioner herein is resident of UK, and in view of the same, petitions have been filed under section 205 Cr.P.C., to dispense with the presence of the petitioner by filing an application to represent a special vakalat holder on his behalf. Since the Court below allowed the said petitions and permitted N.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate, to represent on behalf of the petitioner herein, the Court cannot circumvent the order passed by it. When once an order was passed by the Court below, it cannot review its own order and cease the Special Vakalat of the petitioner herein.

nd

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2 respondent contended that, on many occasions, the Special Vakalat holder of the petitioner did not