JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who on an allegation that she is the second wife of the main accused has been arrayed as an accused in a complaint case being C-1884 of 2013, seeks quashing of the order dated 10.04.2017 by which process under section 82 Cr.P.C has been issued, order dated 22.05.2018 by which process under section 83 Cr.P.C has been issued and order dated 05.07.2018 by which she has been declared permanent absconder. 2. Contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned orders dated 10.04.2017, 22.05.2018 and 05.07.2018 reflect mechanical exercise of powers by the Magistrate; these orders do not reflect that the Magistrate has formed an opinion on the basis of the materials brought on record. 3. To substantiate the aforesaid contentions, Sri Jitendra Shankar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order dated 01.12.2015, in particular. It is stated that without awaiting report on service of summons issued to the accused persons vide order dated 07.04.2014; by this order cognizance of the offence punishable under section 498-A read with 34 I.P.C has also been taken, processes under section 82 Cr.P.C and section 83 Cr.P.C have been issued. 4. Entire order sheet of the complaint case being C-1884 of 2013 has been brought on record by the petitioner. 5. A glance through the proceeding in C-1884 of 2013 does not disclose that non-bailable warrant of arrest was ever issued against the petitioner, rather after the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused-Sanjay Pal vide A.B.A No.471 of 2015 was dismissed with a direction to him to appear before the court below and seek bail, a petition was filed by the complainant for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the said accused. 6. The exercise of powers under section 73 Cr.P.C visits the accused with serious consequences; his liberty is curtailed by exercise of the powers under section 73 Cr.P.C. Similarly, process under section 82 Cr.P.C ensues serious consequence to the accused. Time and again the courts have been reminded that the Magistrate while exercising powers under section 73 Cr.P.C and under section 82 Cr.P.C or section 83 Cr.P.C should record his subjective satisfaction which, of course, the Magistrate forms on the basis of the materials brought before him. 7. Time and again the courts have been reminded that the Magistrate while exercising powers under section 73 Cr.P.C and under section 82 Cr.P.C or section 83 Cr.P.C should record his subjective satisfaction which, of course, the Magistrate forms on the basis of the materials brought before him. 7. At this stage, it is appropriate to indicate that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not contemplate appearance of an accused on each and every date of hearing and that is the reason Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 itself provides that under section 205 Cr.P.C the Magistrate can dispense with personal attendance of the accused and under section 317 Cr.P.C also the Magistrate may exempt personal attendance of the accused before the court and permit him to be represented by a pleader. It is the allegation in the complaint case that the petitioner is the second wife of the accused-husband. The description of the parties as disclosed in the complaint petition reflects that the petitioner is a resident of district-Palamau whereas the complaint case has been instituted at Garhwa, a different district. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the impugned orders dated 10.04.2017, 22.05.2018 and 05.07.2018 have been rendered illegal. 9. Viewed thus and for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders dated 10.04.2017, 22.05.2018 and 05.07.2018 are quashed. Accordingly, Cr. M.P. No.3424 of 2018 stands allowed.