IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI th ON THE 4 OF OCTOBER, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41971 of 2024 RAHUL THAHRYANI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Jigerjeet Singh Chhabra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

being aggrieved by the orders dated 29.07.2024, Annexure P-1 and 05.09.2024 Annexure P-2 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in RCT No.6123/2021 for quashment of aforesaid orders and also quashment of arrest warrant issued against him.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that criminal case under Sections 498, 323, 294, 506/34 and 406 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 have been registered on the FIR at the instance of the complainant, his wife. He further submits that petitioner was granted permission to travel abroad to United States of America for professional dancing training at Fred Astaire Dance Studio, Mesa City Arizona. He returned on 30.12.2022 and marked his presence before the trial Court on Signature Not Verified

02.01.2023. On 20.12.2023 the petitioner slipped from the Icy stairs and sustained serious injuries which hindered his return to India by the permitted date 31.12.2023. Due to this he through his counsel filed an application dated 28.12.2023 seeking extension of his stay abroad on medical grounds due to accident. This application has been rejected on 06.03.2024. The petitioner filed another application on 10.03.2024 seeking permission for renewal of his passport which had expired preventing him to book a return ticket to India. On 15.05.2024 the prosecution filed an application seeking permanent arrest warrant to secure his presence before the trial Court which was allowed by the impugned order Annexure P-1.

3. This order when challenged in criminal revision, the revision petition was dismissed vide Annexure P-2 observing that petitioner shall apply to the passport Authority and only thereafter approach the Court if objections were raised. The order of issuance of permanent arrest warrant has been passed recording the statement of police personnel Shri Ghanshyam Singh Thakur based on Panchnama prepared by the police. He further submits that petitioner is represented through his counsel and he has valid reason for exemption from personal appearance before the Court, but the Court below has illegally passed the impugned orders, therefore prays for allowing the petition by setting aside the impugned orders and also arrest warrant issued against him.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. In the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 vivid details along with the dates have been given. The order thus reveals that petitioner on Signature Not Verified

05.07.2022 has sought permission to go abroad and he was allowed to go abroad, but even after expiry of that period did not return. On 13.02.2023, the learned Sessions Judge has given permission to the petitioner to go abroad with a condition that he will return to India before 31.12.2023, but he did not turn up and thereby violated the order and after that till date i.e. passing of the impugned order has not appeared before the Court.

6. Section 317 and 205 of Cr.P.C. empowers the trial Court to exempt the accused from personal appearance if the Court is satisfied for the reasons stated in the application. Before adverting to the facts in the instant petition, it is pertinent to reproduce the provisions of Section 205 of Cr.P.C. along with judicial pronouncement by the Apex Court on the above provision which reads as under:-

Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which clothes the Magistrate with the discretion to; dispense with the personal appearance of the accused, reads as follows:

"205. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused: - (1) Whenever a Magistrate