JUDGMENT : NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Vishram Singh (petitioner in person), Sri R.K. Verma, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers: 3. It has been submitted by Engr. Vishram Singh (petitioner in person) that he wants to appear as an Agent/Attorney to conduct and argue the case on behalf of Anand Kumar Rajpoot in Case Crime No. 04/2022 under Sections 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, Case No. 92145/2022 pending before learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Kanpur Nagar. 4. In the matter in hand one Rakesh Chandel who is an Advocate filed the case against Anand Kumar Rajpoot. As the said Advocate was an aggressive person, therefore, no Advocate agreed to contest on behalf of Anand Kumar Rajpoot. Accordingly, he wanted to engage Engr. Vishram Singh as Mukhtar/Attorney to conduct his case and moved an application 7-Kha with a prayer to appoint Engr. Vishram Singh as his Agent/Attorney to conduct and argue the case but the learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, vide order dated 28.7.2023, had rejected the application on following grounds: (i) That no Power of Attorney was executed by Anand Kumar Rajpoot in favour of Engr. Vishram Singh as the same was not kept in the file. (ii) That no document was filed which could portray his legal knowledge nor any certificate which could exhibit education of law or its any branch. (iii) It was also rejected on the ground that in the case in hand Engr. Vishram Singh was professing practice of law under the laxity of provisions by which a private person may be permitted to appear before the Court. 5. Engr. Vishram Singh has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as rendered in A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 630 and Harishankar Rastogi vs. Girdhari Sharma, 1978 AIR SC 1019 wherein it has been held that: “a question for decision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether a person who is not an advocate by profession can be permitted to plead on behalf of the petitioner. It has been held that it is open to a person who is party to a proceeding to get himself represented by non-advocates in a particular instance or case. It has been held that it is open to a person who is party to a proceeding to get himself represented by non-advocates in a particular instance or case. Practicing a profession means something very different from representing some friend or relation on one occasion or in one case or on a few occasions of in a few cases. In the present instance, permission is sought for presentation through a non-advocate. It is absolutely clear that any one who is not an advocate, can not as of right, rise himself into this Court and claim to plead for another. Permission may however be granted by this Court taking the justice of the situation and several other factors into consideration for non-professional representation. This approach accords with the policy of the Criminal Procedure Code (I am concerned with a criminal proceeding here) as spelt out in Section 2(q). A pleader by definition, includes any person other than one authorized by law to practise in a court. If he is appointed with the permission of the court, to act in a particular proceeding. This Court's power may well be exercised in regulating audience before it in tune with the spirit of Section 2(q) of the Code.” 6. Simultaneously Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 it provides that: “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, any court, authority, or person may permit any person, not enrolled as an advocate under this Act, to appear before it or him in any particular case.” 7. Thus, the aforesaid provision gives power to the Court to permit non-advocates to appear in person in certain case. The said permission can be granted by the Court after considering certain factors such as the non-advocate's antecedents, their relationship with the party and the reasons for requesting the non-advocate's services and other relevant circumstances. The Court may grant permission on a case to case basis and can refuse permission based on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 8. Upon hearing Engr. Vishram Singh in person and from the perusal of record and the case laws and the provision as quoted above, it transpires that the learned Court had incorrectly interpreted the word “particular.” The said word refers to a “specific case” for which the permission is to be sought. 8. Upon hearing Engr. Vishram Singh in person and from the perusal of record and the case laws and the provision as quoted above, it transpires that the learned Court had incorrectly interpreted the word “particular.” The said word refers to a “specific case” for which the permission is to be sought. It also transpires that previously the petitioner in person was permitted to conduct several cases as an Agent/Attorney on behalf of Anand Kumar Rajpoot, therefore, there is no justifiable reason to reject the present application. The petitioner has sufficient experience and knowledge in the legal field and can deftly contest the case on behalf of the applicant. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and case law as cited above, the order dated 28.7.2023, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar is hereby set aside. 10. In case a fresh application is moved by Anand Kumar Rajpoot along with the Power of Attorney to appoint Engr. Vishram Singh (petitioner in person) to appear as his Agent/Attorney to conduct and argue the case on his behalf, the Court may consider the same and decide expeditiously within a period of three weeks from the date of production of the order, in accordance with law, if there is no other legal impediment. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.