IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53599 of 2007 DEEPSHIKHA JAIN (WRONGLY STATED AS DEEPSHIKHA PATWA), DAUGHTER OF PRAKASH CHANDRA PATWA, RESIDENT OF BAJERAMRAM DEVCHANDRA BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, CHIRA BAZAR, S.K.P. MARG, MARIN DRIVE, MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA) --------- PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. DARPAN KUMAR JAIN, SON OF BRAHMEHARI SURENDRA KR. JAIN, R/O SUPHADRA KUNJ, MURARI COLONY, NEW AREA, KADAM KUAN, PATNA ------ OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 8. 07/05/2010 Heard. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 12.10.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 3512C of 2006 by which he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner made under Section 205 Cr. P.C. The case of the prosecution is that the Complainant and the petitioner started to do of business from Mumbai together, but, thereafter, the Complainant having suspected the accused of some ill-will, wished to return to Patna. However, when he was preparing to come to Patna, the petitioner along with co-accused Upesh Ludbe came to his Flat and forcibly confined him demanding clearing of some dues. However, he escaped but again he was kidnapped and variously assaulted due to which he had to be treated in the Hospital. When he returned to Patna, the accused persons also came to Patna and demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as the cost that had been incurred by them in the business dealing. The court after enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C., took cognizance for offence under Sections 420, 365, 386, - 2 - 320 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons. The petitioner along with other co-accused persons moved this Court for quashing the order of cognizance and this Court quashed part of the Complaint and observed that only Sections 420 and 323 I.P.C. was made out against the accused persons. The learned Magistrate after the order passed in Cr. Misc. 1217 of 2007 as mentioned above, recalled the warrant of arrest issued against the accused persons and stayed non- bailable warrant of arrest and attachment till further orders. Therefore, presently, only Section 420 I.P.C. is proceeding against the petitioner which is non-bailable in nature and Section 323 I.P.C. which is bailable in nature. The petitioner has sought exemption on the ground that she is an unmarried girl and resides permanently in Mumbai and there is no question of any dispute of identity. The petitioner also undertakes to be present on the date so fixed by this Court. From the averments made in the complaint petition, it appears that there is a general allegation against all the accused persons of having cheated the opposite party No. 2. In view of the nature of the allegation against the petitioner and her mental status, I am of the view that she deserves to be exempted from personal appearance on each date, and allow this application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. and set aside the order dated 12.10.2007 passed by Sri Sobha Kant Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Patrna, in Complaint case No. 3512 C - 3 - of 2006. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will appear in the court below on the date as and when required by the concerned court. In the result, the application is allowed. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, J.)