m IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BlLASPUR CR. M. P. NOY^ OF 2011 Stnfito Bench IN THE MATTER OF: Petitioner/Applicant ^19.1!f... P.R. No. ?KW^W\iT' Oated...-fe!-^-'"""" 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 Ramavtar Agrawal, S/o Shri 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 PETIT10N UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 .B^wfrn^ ^qian^iwiNi ^9. •^SEf T, 'S'TTlTPTS, I'STcTCTy . ^w,i^^/ gn^s 'vsv (.'ySy^) I. L •swiwgittf an^i SB : Hon'ble Shri Manmdra MoljianShrivastava, J. 11.11.2011 Shri Ankit Singhal, counsel fot the petitioner. Shri S.K. Tiwari, counsel for tlfi With the consent of learned ct matter is heard finally. This petition has been filed t|y the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 23.5.2011 passed by the Chief complaint of the respondent, wheii' Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh on the |eby, petitioner's application under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. for exerr(ption from personal appearance on that particular date has been rejectecj. Learned counsel for the petitiijiner contended that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments transplantation. On this ground, the ind has also undergone kidney lietitioner had moved an application for exemption from his personal appl that the case only involves dishonjsur of cheque and not a case of commission of any heinous offence have adopted a liberal attitude in con^idering the application. On the other hand, learned (jounsel for the respondentsubmits that the grounds, on which, the petit considered by learned Magistrate sufficient to allow the application, been rightly rejected. From the order impugned, it sought exemption stating that he is and had great difficulty in und isnfen^t '!3F'Rff '!ir ft'ei '?issfc?i< * stRTi an^i e respondent. >unsel appearing for the parties, the earance and in the light of the fact the learned Court below ought to foner sought exemption, were dully ^nd the grounds were not found ^nd therefore, the application has |is revealed that the petitioner had ^uffering from renal failure problem l^rtaking journey without proper .gOTIcBF, WTiRiriI—l'S/140—2/2011—1,50,000. <s^qn1^ii^ wnsn^rwiR; L._. ;r5? ^i^M^, 'srfl^r?, fsr^iray "^ 200 31^'B 'Rqi' (Tjcify^! TKSWit 'dfei SfI^I — 7_ reservation. The petitioner had certificates showing that he rem^ined undergone renal transplant operati|3n below has rejected the applicationj ailment related documents show problems almost 2 years before an<J that stage, the petitioner is suffeijing medical complications. The submission of the pe| exemption that he is a patient, suff^ing not been disputed by anyone. The| Patna to attend the criminal proce^dings that the allegation of commission| heinous case or a grave accusatio(i. cheque. Taking into consideration the opinion ofthis Court, the Court attitude while considering petition^r's personal appearance, allowing him these circumstances, I am inclined Accordingly, the order of th| application for exemption from hii bailable warrant is quashed. Howevj the Court below on or before 12 D^< appear there, unless exempted fronl ^TiifeNt1? •BFWS 4^V! 'f'S^'i ^; S'RT] an^r also submitted certain discharge admitted in hospital and had on 29.5.2009. The learned Court holding that the operation and the hat the petitioner had suffered the there is no material to show that at from any ailment or any other ptioner and the basis for seeking from certain renal problems, has petitioner is required to come from at Raigarh. It has to be seen of offence does not relate to any i. Present is a case of dishonour of fhe totality of the circumstances, in ^elow ought to have adopted a liberal application for exemption from |o appear though his counsel. Under interfere in the matter. i^ Court below rejecting petitioner's personal appearance and issuing /^r, the petitioner shall appear before 'cember, 2011 and shall continue to tb his appearance. vnT'Svs Wvypu<w, wiraiipira—l's/140—2/2011—l,50,ooo. ',;'':'>>... -s^T r, 'S-TT(WI^', T^rray ^: SR^qgfeiss' wn'isii^ra^iN? Tumane w^v !ra?? (•^i-'s.s;.) •sigrot'afta sn^ii —"^ It is nnade clear that if the Court below as directed above, th^ coercive steps to compel productioi]) of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly al! ^PifOT^ TnTCT •Si fS^I' '(fsf^K ^s »Ws'isn^r petitioner fails to appear before the Court below will be at liberty to take owed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge 9 snwntii Wv^asv, WiRRira—l'S/140—2 / 2011—1,50,000.