The High Court of Jharkhand while allowing an application under Section 205 CrPC held that the purpose of exemption under Section 205 Cr. P.C is that the order of the learned Magistrate should be such that which does not make any unnecessary harassment to the accused and at the same time does not cause any prejudice to the complainant and in the present case, the petitioners are responsible persons who are ready to give undertaking that the trial will not hamper in their absence.
Brief Facts:
The present perition was filed by the petitioners after their application under Section 205 CrPC was rejected by the trial court in connection with a complaint case filed against them in a commercial dispute.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the matter is arising out of commercial dispute between the parties and further the petitionesrs are not avoiding appearance before the learned Court and have bonafidely filed a petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for dispensing with their personal appearance as they are busy with the work of the company and further submitted that the petitioners are ready to comply with any directions of this Court as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. and other.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that although the petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioners is there before the learned Court, however, such power is required to be exercised by the learned Court with circumspection and the case is arising out of warrant trial case and in view of that, the learned Court has rightly passed the impugned order.
Observations of the court:
The court observed that prima facie it appears that the case is arising out of commercial dispute and for that complaint case has been filed and there is no doubt that Section 205 Cr.P.C. petition is discretionary jurisdiction of the learned Court, however, at the same time, the said order is required to be considered in view of the fact that unnecessary harassment should not be there to the accused.
Further it was stated that recording of the evidence in presence of the accused is one of the requirement under the Cr.P.C. and if the progress of trial can be achieved even in the absence of the accused the court can certainly take into account the magnitude of the sufferings which a particular accused person may have to bear.
The court further stated that the purpose of exemption under Section 205 Cr.P.C is that the order of the learned Magistrate should be such which does not make any unnecessary harassment to the accused and at the same time does not cause any prejudice to the complainant and the learned court is required to ensure that exemption from personal appearance granted to the accused is not an abuse or delay the trial and in the present case, the petitioners are responsible persons of the company against whom allegations are made and are further ready to give undertaking that the trial will not hamper in their absence and in view of that, progress of trial can be achieved, accordingly, the impugned order can be set aside.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and accepted the application submitted by the petitioners to dispense with the personal appearance on some conditions.
Case Title: Nawal Kumar Kanodia @ Nawal Kanodia and anr. vs State of Jharkhand and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: W.P. (Cr.) No. 417 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha and Mr. Anurag Kashyap
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : YouTube.com
