Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8422 of 2011 (5) dt.08-11-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.8422 of 2011 ====================================================== Pramod Kumar Sharma .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ansul, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vinay Mistry, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 5 08-11-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this case, petitioner is challenging the order dated 28th January 2011 passed in Complaint Case No.342 © of 2010 whereby and whereunder the court below has refused to give benefit of Section 205 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. The complaint petition has been filed by the close relative of the petitioner stating that there was a business agreement for supply of ply. The supply was made to the tune of Rs.2,93,314/- vide Challan No. 71 and on the same day of the same amount, petitioner handed over cheque bearing No. 41575 of which Drawee Bank was Bank of Baroda. It has been alleged by the complainant that the cheque was presented in the Bank but the same was returned dishonored with the remarks ‘exceeded arrangement’. Thereafter legal notice was given but even then the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8422 of 2011 (5) dt.08-11-2012 cheque amount was not returned to the complainant which led to filing of the present case. An application [STATUTE] appearance in the trial. The trial court refused the same by the order impugned. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is basically an issue related to the dishonour of cheque, that too in business transaction, and it has been submitted that the petitioner is a businessman looking after his business interest in three states as he has been appointed as an authorized agent. Counsel for the O.P. has disputed the argument that altogether four cases are lying in between the parties in the civil court, Patna and at the same time merely because he is a businessman he cannot take benefit of Section 205 Cr.P.C. when his residential place is at Patna. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, this Court finds that it is basically a business dispute and the petitioner is given the benefit of Section 205 Cr.P.C., subject to the condition that he will remain physically present at the time of (i) Explaining the accusation, (ii) at the time of framing of charge, (iii) at the stage of 313 Cr.P.C. and also (iv) at the time of passing of the judgment. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8422 of 2011 (5) dt.08-11-2012 With this observation this petition is allowed and the order impugned is hereby quashed. However as it is a small matter the court below is directed to expedite the matter and dispose of the case preferably within one year from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. If any of the parties fails to co-operate with the court, the court below will be at liberty to proceed with the matter ex parte. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 205

Statute Text:
Section 205 of the Indian Penal Code. False personation for the purpose of any act or proceeding in a suit or criminal prosecution, or for becoming bail or security. Whoever falsely personates another, and in such assumed character makes any admission or statement, or confesses judgment, or causes any process to be issued or becomes bail or security, or does any other act in any suit or criminal prosecution, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.