Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 842 (PAT)

Madhusudan Mittal v. State Of Bihar

2006-09-13

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2006
Judgment 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 7.6.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Nagar P.S. Case No. 512 of 2004 by which the learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Sec.205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a busy lawyer of Jharkhand High Court and is practising since almost last 25 years. 3. It has been submitted that it may not be practically possible for the petitioner to attend the case at Muzaffarpur on each and every date. 4. It has also been submitted that the distance between Ranchi is also considerable and as such it is not possible for the petitioner to attend the Court. 5. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is a very busy lawyer and keeps on moving for appearance and conference with the counsel in the other High Courts es well including Delhi, Kolkata and other places. 6. It has lastly been submitted that from perusal of the Complaint/First Information Report it is evident that the case is of a frivolous nature and it is likely that the petitioner will be acquitted in the said case. It is submitted that the offences are bailable in nature and are summary triable cases. The alleged offence is trivial in nature. If the petitioner is not given benefit under Sec.205 of the Code it would cause hardship and loss of his practice. The petitioner submits that he would not dispute his identity in the case. He undertakes to appear before the Court below as and when required. 7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel that the petitioner is practicing lawyer in Jharkhand High Court, as such, it would be difficult for him to attend the Court on each and every date. Accordingly, he is granted the benefit under Sec.205 of the Code and is exempted from his personal appearance on each and every date. However, he shall be represented by his lawyer on each and every date, so fixed, and will also be present if and when required by the Court. 8. Accordingly the impugned order dated 7.6.2006 is hereby quashed and this petition is allowed.