Judgment : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 08.05.2014 passed by the learned Jt. Judicial Magistrate F.C., Khed below Exhibit 126 in R.C.S.No.155 of 2004. Vide the said order, the learned Judge was pleased to reject the application preferred by the accused No.4, for recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through the Indian Embassy, in the United States of America. 4. The petitioner's ex-wife lodged a complaint/FIR as against the petitioner and three others alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed as against the petitioners. The case is pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khed and is numbered as R.C.S.No.155 of 2004. The present petitioner No.1, who is working in the USA, is an accused in the said case along with his mother, brother and sister. It appears that the Family Court had passed a decree of divorce on 27.09.2010 pursuant to which the marriage of the petitioner No.1 and his ex-wife Mrs. Vaishali Khedekar came to be dissolved. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that as the petitioner No.1 was working in the United States, he had preferred an application, being Exhibit Nos.61 & 65 praying therein that he may be permitted to go to the United States of America. However, the said application was not decided by the learned Judge. He further submits that as the petitioner No.1 is residing in the United States and working there and was unable to attend the proceedings in the trial Court, the petitioner No.1 preferred an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking exemption from appearing in the trial Court i.e. in Criminal case No.155 of 2004. He states that vide order dated 20.06.2011, the learned Magistrate, Khed was pleased to exempt the petitioner No.1 from appearing in the trial Court in Criminal case No.155 of 2004. He states that the learned Magistrate vide order dated 20.06.2011 was pleased to pass the following order. "1) The application is allowed. 2) The applicant-accused No.4 is hereby granted exemption till further order on following conditions. He states that the learned Magistrate vide order dated 20.06.2011 was pleased to pass the following order. "1) The application is allowed. 2) The applicant-accused No.4 is hereby granted exemption till further order on following conditions. a. Accused shall not challenge his identity. b. Accused shall remain present before the Court when it is directed and ordered to that effect. c. The advocate for the accused shall attend the Court on each and every date without fail in absence of the accused-applicant. d. The advocate for accused shall conduct the matter in absence of accused-application without challenging his identity." He submits that the learned Magistrate proceeded with the case, by recording the evidence of the witnesses and thereafter, closed the evidence. The learned counsel submits that when the case reached the stage of recording of the statements of the petitioners (accused) under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner No.1 preferred an application, being Exhibit 126 praying therein, that the questions under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be sent in a sealed envelope to the petitioner No.1 and that he would give his reply in the presence of the Indian Embassy, USA, as the petitioner No.1 is unable to come to India, considering the nature of his job. He submits that though the prosecution had no objection to grant of the application, the impugned order was passed. 6. The learned APP has no objection for recording of the statement of the petitioner No.1 in accordance with the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Basavraj R. Patil vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2000 DGLS(Soft.) 1484 by imposing certain conditions. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Judge observed that apart from the fact, that the petitioner No.1 had not sought permission to leave the country, the petitioner No.1 has also not met with the requirement of filing an affidavit of himself, giving the requisite undertaking as set out by the Apex Court in the case of Basavraj R. Patil (Supra). The learned Judge directed the petitioner No.1 to appear in person before him, within a period of three weeks from the date of the order. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner No.1 is ready to give an undertaking in terms of the Apex Court Judgment in the case of Basavraj R. Patil (Supra). The learned Judge directed the petitioner No.1 to appear in person before him, within a period of three weeks from the date of the order. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner No.1 is ready to give an undertaking in terms of the Apex Court Judgment in the case of Basavraj R. Patil (Supra). As the petitioner No.1 is ready to give an undertaking in terms of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Basavraj and is also ready to give an undertaking that he will remain present on the date when the case is kept for pronouncement of the Judgment, the impugned order dated 08.05.2014 passed by the learned Jt. Judicial Magistrate F.C., Khed below Exhibit 126 in R.C.S.No.155 of 2004 is quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 to give an undertaking in accordance with the aforesaid Judgment mainly; (1) To state the real difficulties in being physically present in the Court for giving such answers under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) To give assurance that no prejudice would be caused to him in any manner by dispensing with his personal presence during such questioning. (3) An undertaking that he would not raise any grievance on that score at any stage of the case or thereafter. In addition to the aforesaid, the petitioner No.1 will also give an undertaking that he will remain present on the date of the pronouncement of the Judgment before the trial Court. 8. After the aforesaid undertaking is given, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the learned Judge to take appropriate steps for recording the petitioner No.1's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in accordance with law. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioner No.1 will give an undertaking as aforestated in para 7 at the earliest. 10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. 11. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.