Short Note : 1. On a private complaint filed by the non-applicant the Second Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, took cognizance of the offence under S. 500 IPC and directed to issue summons against the applicants. The applicants were required to remain present in the Court on 31-8-77. On that date the applicants' counsel Shri Chhazed appeared before the Court and made an application to dispense with the personal attendance of the applicants. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Held : However, the question for consideration is whether this Court in exercise of its inherent powers can dispense with the personal attendance of the applicant No.1, Dr. A. G. Sharma in the he trial Court. In Madhao Rao v. Iswardas (37 MPLC 343) it was held that the High Court can do so if it is necessary to give effect to any order under the Criminal Procedure Code Or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 2. It is not necessary to express any opinion by this Court as regards the delay in making the complaint against the applicants. However, looking to the nature of the allegations, the status of the applicant and the nature of bis duties which he is required to perform at the University, the learned magistrate ought to have exercised the discretion in dispensing with the personal attendance of the applicant No. 1 U/s. 205 Cr. P. C. To my mind, it will be an abuse of the process of law to compel the attendance of the applicant No.1 in the Court on every date of hearing. It appears that the learned Magistrate has rejected the application mechanically without applying his mind. The trial Court has certainly the power to direct the personal attendance of the applicant at any stage of the proceedings if it is felt to be necessary for the progress of the trial but to compel the application to attend the Court on each and every date of bearing would, to my mind result in harassment amounting to the abuse of the process of law. 37 MPLC 343 relied on. Application allowed.