t7- 1 $- * IN THE HIGH COURT CRL.M.C. L944I2OLL PRADEEP GOYAL OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ..... Petitioner Amit Tayal, Adv. ..... Respondents Mr. Neeraj Kumar Singh and Mr. Deepak Rikhari, Advocates for R-2 to R-5 Through: Mr. VETSUS -a. STATE & ORS. Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAlr ORDER o/o 16'O8'201L 1. Vide this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 03.05.20LL passed by learned ,. Metropolitan Magistrate, North West, Delhi whereby the respondents No.2 to 5 were exempted till further orders through their counsel Sh.Neeraj Kumar Singh and Deepak Rikhari, Advocates. Learned MM further directed that the accused persons shall, however, appear in court as and when directed. Signing Date:17.08.2024 16:51:44 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified b Q 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents No.2 to 5 never appeared in the court, therefore, the learned trial court should not have exempted until they appear personally in the court. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5 submits that vide order dated 23.08 .20LL all the 4 accused persons were summoned. Accused No.1 is a company, accused Ankur Verma is a managing director and signatory of the cheques in question, Manish Verma and Vandana Verma are stated to be the directors of the company. 4. On 03.05 .20LL, in pursuance of the order dated 23.08.2008 the learned counsel for the accused/respondent moved an application for personal exemption before the trial court. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant opposed the same and contended that till the absence of the accused the request for permanent exemption cannot be considered. According to him since the accused persons are yet to appear in the court in present case in order to complete the procedural formalities such as bail proceedings and framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. they cannot be exempted from ] personal appearance. 5. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate observed that there is no legal impediment in considering the request of the respondent/accused for permanent exemption in their absence. ln Somnath Mishra v. State, (1990) 3 OCR 577, it was held that it is not mandatory for the accused to personally appear in court before filing an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. 6. The learned Trial Judge has further observed that as far as the framing of notice against the accused is concerned, their presence is not required to frame the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. 7. Additionally, the respondent/accused persons had filed separate affidavits on record stating ftrat they shall not dispute their identity in the case and have no objection in taking evidence in their absence. 8. Keeping the above discussion in view, the learned Trial Judge has exempted all the respondents No.2 to S/accused persons till further orders through their counsel Neeraj Kumar Singh and Deepak Rikhari, Advocates. 9. I also do not find force in the contention of the learned I I counsel for the petitioner that the trial court could not exempt the respondents without their personal appearance in the court. The learned counsel has not shown any of the provision/bars the Court to grant the personal exemption. 10. I find no discrepancy in the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in passing the order dated 03.05.20II. 11. Accordingly, Crl.M .C.l944l20LL is dismissed. L2. No order as to costs. suREsH KAlr, J AUGUST I.5, 2O1I. Mm/RS 3