^ Singte Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) (Cr^M-P^VSo, ...Ho&..../2011) APPLICANT: P.n.Nfl. Pwtented ty Dated, *^<r*»«»i '^w^. 1>w^*« •wyw^ Shivendra Singh, S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged about 22, year, R/o Samata Colony, Raipur, Thana- Sarswati Nagar, Tahsil and District Raipur (G.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh Through : Thana - Mana Camp, District- Raipur (C.G.) ^" APPLICATIQN UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCESURE 1973 ?\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri iWanindra Mohan Shrivastava. J, APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT Cr.M.P. No.408/2011 Shivendra Singh Versus State or Chhattisaarh PETITION UNDER SBCTiON 482 OF THE COD6 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Present: - Dr. Kumaresh Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER ith l' -<'• This petition has been fiied by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 2/5/2011 passed by the Revisionai Court by which the order dated 11/2/2011 passed by the Trial Court rejecting pet'rtioner's application under Section 2iD6 CrPC has been affirmed. 2. Learned counset for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is facin( trial for alleged commission of offence under Section 279, 304 (A) and 337 JPC. He submits that the petifioner is a regular student of MBA and he is pursuing his studies at Pune. The petitioner is finding it djificuit to attend proceedings, which is coming in the way of smooth attendance in the educationai institution, on which the petitioner's future career depends. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though aforesaid aspects were brought to the notice of the Courts below, the appiication has been 1 rejected and order of rejection was conflrmed by the Court holding that the petitioner has not been able to establish any inabitity. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the provisions contained in CrPC require the presence of the petiiioner as an accused on each and every date of proceedings. In his submission, the provisions contained in Section 205 CrPC which empowers the Magistrate to dispense with personal appearance and permtt him to appear through counsel, cannot be taken recourse to in the cases of present nature, oniy on the ground that the petitioner is a student. 4. I have heard tearned counsel for the parties. 5. Sectlon 205 CrPC empowers the Magistrate to dispense with personal attendance of the accused and permit him to a^ear by his pleader. it further provides that the Magistrate at any stage of proceedings can direct personal attendance and if necessary, enforce such attendanoe in the manner provided in that provision. Therefore, the Magistrate has authority and jurisdiction to dispense with personal attendance of the accused. it provides that the power is required to be exerdsed in a judicial manner, keeping in view that such order is to be passed when the accused is able to establish proper reason and justification. 6. In the present case, the petitioner moved an appiication for dispensing with his pereonal attendance and appearance through counsel /: ^h1^-^,. ^ ^^-^' on the ground that he is a regular student of MBA in Pune. This assertion of the petitioner has neither 'peen denied by the prosecution. If that be so, the reason which has been assigned by the petittoner, does not appear to be baseless. Further, ft has to be seen that the decision in such ca^ is required to be taken, keeping in view, the offences for whtch the accused is being prosecuted. Present is a case of imptication of the petitioner in a case of rash and negiigent driving. It is not a case where the petitioner is a hard core criminal or habituat offender or facing prosecution 1w any heinous crime. 7. The consequences of a regular student, not being allowed to pursue his studies may be serious. Therefore, taking into consideration the totaltty of the circumstances and the fact that the petitioner Is pursuing his studies at distaht place at Pune whereas he is facing prosecution at Ralpur, in the opinion of this Court, the Court below exceeded its jurisdietion in not entertaining the application of the petitioner in its proper perspective. The order therefore calls for interference. The petition has to be allowed and is accordingty ailowed. The impugned orders of the Courts below are set aside. 8. tt is however, made clear that the petitioner shall not be altowed to raise any ground to assail the validity of the proceedings before the Court below on the ground of his absence nor any adjoumment shall be sought. Moreover, the order or this Court shall not come in the way of the Court beiow in passing appropriate order in exercise of powers under Section ueepti 205 (2) CrPC, as and when the Magistrate in his discretion think it necessary to direct personal attendance of the petitioner and enforce attendance in the manner permissibie under the law. Sd/- "•"•"dn",Sh4".sh'1'"5t"a pw^ K';