IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAHISGARH AT BILASPUR CR. M. P. N0.l}ao OF 2011 s IN THE MATTER OF: Petitioner/Applicant 'i^^sy^ .lL\5.>.//---ir"1 VERSUS Respondent/Complainant Satish Goenka, S/o Shri Gopichand Goenka, Aged about 39 years, Director of J.M.G. Steel Pvt. Ltd. R/o Tedighat, Infront of Keshwani Market, Patna, Police Station- Khaje Kala, District- Patna, Bihar Ramavtor Agrawal, S/o Shn Pooran Chand Agrawal, Aged about 60 years, Director of Epic Alloy Steel Pvt. Ltd. R/o Krishna Vihar Colony, Dhimarpur, P.S. Kotra Road, Raigarh, District- Raigarh i^TITlON UNDER SECTION 482'OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Jl TR^Toil TtqiST^I 2<^ -3^ •^piTnT^ ^=iT:tFri?, t^TT<TTp; ..<^r.:..^.'.(7~..rto.:.^.^ IT??? 'W9? (-lp'i':pS!; wrar Ttita sff^; SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindj-a Mohan Shrivastava. J. 3.11.2011 -BFfeS1? tSicm ^ feft l!f SS 3»^a3^'v Shri Ankit Singhal, c4unsel for fhe petitioner. Shri S.K. Tiwari, couijisel for fhe respondent. Wifh the consent oj parties, the matter is heari^ be^n This petition has order dated 23.5.2011 pa^ Raigarh on the coniplaint d application under Section personal appearance on ths filed by the petitioner aggrieved by jsed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, f the respondent, whereby, petitioner's ^05 of the Cr.P.C. for exemption from |it paiticular date has been rejected. Leamed counsel forl petitioner is suffering fr<| undergone kidney transplajitation had moved an applicatioti appearance and in the ligh^ dishonour of cheque and heinous ofience, fhe leame^ liberal attitude in considerijtis On the other hand, silhmits that thp. grnnni 'minrtpt leamed counsel appearing for the finally. fhe petitioners contended that fhe ^m various aiknents and has also i. On this ground, the petitioner for exemption from hls personal of fhe fact that fhe case only involves not a case of coinmission of any Coiirt below ought to have adopted a |ig fhe application. leamed counsel for fhe respondent on w^jic'h t^f D^titioncr sou< r \ 1 XI-HC—7S (^) -S=3 ^TOKT<T, ^TITrT<?, Ts^lTO'y W 3ii^?r sff 1%:*N? Tfqi 3^1 B^lte TTOTW ^fei 3^1 z '^r<rf?T<ft;7 ^wsi <-i J-K'i<^ iJ^STC ^sffOTSIT^i exemption was diilly con^idered by leamed Magistrate and tfae groiinds were not found ^ufiicient to allow fhe appllcation and, fherefore, fhe application tjas been rightly rejected. From the order impi^gned, it is revealed that the petitioner had sought exemption st^ttng tihat he is si.ifiering Irom renal failure problem and had ^reat difiiculty in undertakmg journey without proper reservatloiji. The petitioner had also submitted certain discharge certificat^s showtng that he remained admitted in hospital and had undi^rgone renal transplant operation on 29.5.2009. The leamed Cojurt below has rejected the application, holding fhat the operatioi^ show fhat the petitioner ]had suffered the problems almost 2 The submission of thje exemption that he is a problems ,has not been (^isj required to come from Patjia at Raigarh. It has to be se^n offence does not relate to a(iy Present is a case of and fhe ailment related dociunents years before and fhere is 40 material to sho-w that at that stage, the petitioner is suffering ^oia any aihnent or any ofher medical complications. petltioner and the basis for seeking 1 patient,suffering from certain renal jisputed by anyone. The petitioner is to attend (he criimnal proceedings fhat fhe allegation of commission of heinous case or a graveaccusation. jlishonour of cheque. Taking uito XI-HC—7; ~5'S[ '^lTqTtTF?, ^rTT:aTr'?. TSTCTTOT^ sn^t^ilfnNr 7rar CT^I *"isti | Praveen ira^? (Ti?'?3^^T) •FRnw^tesntw •i- consideration fhe totality o) this Court, the Court beljsw attitude while considering from personal appearance, counsel. Under (hese the matter. ^N?T<ft;f ^•itRTi" ~si feft l;f3T?sTC i? VS9V -BT^I the circumstances, in the opinion of ought to have adopted a liberal Ipetitioner's application for exemption aUowir^ him to appear fhough his >, I am incllned to interfere in circutastances, Accordingly, fhe or^ler of the Court below rejecttng petitioner's application fpr exemption from his personal appearance and issuing b^ilable warrant is quashed. However, the petitioner shaU appearj 13th December, 2011 and exempted froui his appearaijice. It is made clear that fhe Court below as direct4d libeity to take coercive petltioner. ff fhe petitioner fails to appear before above, fhe Coiirt below will be at ^teps to compel production of the The petition is accorc^ above. before the Court below on or before shatl continue to appear there iinless ingly anowed to the extent indicated Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge