Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 294 (JHR)

Roop Kumari Tiwari v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-03-06

HARI SHANKAR PRASAD

body2002
ORDER Hari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the impugned order dated 21.6.2001, 3. It is stated that case under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 was instituted against the petitioner. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 205 of Cr PC to dispense with her personal attendance and permit her to appear in the Court by her pleader. It is stated that Inspector of Factory, Ranchi, filed an official complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, against the petitioner stating therein that petitioner, who is a lady, runs one repairing and servicing centre of automobiles in the name of M/s Tewary Bechar and Company Limited. 4. It is, stated that Opposite Party No. 2 had visited the said workshop on 20.4.99. Opposite Party No. 2 had filed two separate prosecutions in the Court of CJM, Ranchi against petitioner which was numbered as C III-163/99 and C. III-164/99 and case No. C. III-163/99 is the present case. It is stated that petitioner received summons in the case No. C. III-164/99 and petitioner appeared through lawyer and her personal appearance was dispensed with. Petitioner had no knowledge of the pendency of this case nor she received any summons and in April 2001, she learnt about the pendency of this case and she appeared through her lawyer on 28.4.2001 and file a petition to dispense with her personal appearance but that prayer was rejected by order dated 21.6.2001 and that order is under challenge now. 5. On perusal of impugned order dated 21.6.2001, it appears that prayer for representation through lawyer under Section 205 of Cr PC filed by petitioner was rejected solely on the ground that petitioner claims on the one hand to be busy and on the other hand/aged about 72 years and further that warrant of arrest has been issued. But the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a number of decisions such as 1999 (2) PLJR Page 270, 1996 (2) East Cr. Cases 399 and 1999 (1) East Cr C page 607 and submitted that issuance of warrant of arrest cannot be/an impediment in allowing this petition under Section 205 of Cr. PC. 6. But the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a number of decisions such as 1999 (2) PLJR Page 270, 1996 (2) East Cr. Cases 399 and 1999 (1) East Cr C page 607 and submitted that issuance of warrant of arrest cannot be/an impediment in allowing this petition under Section 205 of Cr. PC. 6. In that view of the matter, this application is allowed, the impugned order dated 21.6.2001 is hereby quashed and the petitioner is allowed to be represented through her lawyer under Section 205 Cr. PC. How ever, it is made clear that learned Magistrate may in his discretion at any stage of proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused petitioner or if necessary, compel such attendance.