Judgment 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.2.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 467(C) of 2003 by which the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition dated 2.8.2005 filed under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners are residing in U.S.A. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are too old and are suffering from various old age diseases and are under the treat ment of doctor in U.S.A. and as such they are unable to make their presence in the Court at Patna. 3. It has been further submitted that the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are citizens of U.S.A. and have minor children aged about 4 and 6 years, so it is not practical that they would appear before the Court below on each and every date if not dispensed with their personal attendance. 4. It has been submitted that petitioner No. 1 is Software Engineer engaged in a company in U.S.A. He has a busy work schedule. All the petitioners have difficulty in being present in the Court on every date. 5. It has been submitted that the learned Magistrate has erred in holding that warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioners as on the date of passing the impugned order only process were issued against the petitioners. 6. It has been also submitted that this Hon ble Court as well as the Hon ble Apex Court has held that keeping in view the busy schedule of the person concerned their personal attendance should be dispensed with irrespective of fact that warrant of arrest was issued against them even at first instance. Here in this case summon was issued at first instance. 7. The petitioners undertake that they will not take plea of prejudice at any stage of trial, appeal or revision arising out of the present if they are allowed to be represented by their counsel. 8. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners in which it has been stated that the petitioners undertake to abide by any direction of this Hon ble Court as well as Court below and they further undertake to appear in the Court below whenever they are required to do so. 9. 8. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners in which it has been stated that the petitioners undertake to abide by any direction of this Hon ble Court as well as Court below and they further undertake to appear in the Court below whenever they are required to do so. 9. Considering the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioners reside in U.S.A. and they are busy persons and are old, it is not practicable for them to appear in the Court on each and every date, so advised. Accordingly, they are granted the benefit of Section 205 of the Code and are exempted from their personal attendance on each and every date. However, they shall be represented by their lawyer on every date. They will also have to appear personally in the Court below when required. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 15.2.2006 is hereby quashed and this petition is allowed.