IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.587 of 2008 PARESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3 17.11.2008 Heard M/s Rajesh Singh and Rana Pratap Singh, Advocates and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Although the complainant Manju Rani Sinha impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2 was duly served with notice she chosen not to appear and contest this application. This petitioner is aggrieved by and seeks the quashing of order dated 8.8.2006 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 3660 (C) of 2005, whereby he rejected petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 205 Cr.P.C. for exemption from personal appearance and the consequential order dated 27.7.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patna, in Cr. Revision No. 911 of 2006 upholding the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate. According to the complainant she had deposited Rs. 63,000/- approximately in cumulative deposit schemes of Escort Finance Ltd. fetching an interest @ 8.5% per annum for a period 12 months and 1 day and three certificates therefor were issued to her. It further appears that when need for money arose she claimed to have approached various officials of the Company for prematured withdrawal of money but she was not allowed to contact the petitioner. It was claimed that the officials of the Company had denied the complainant premature withdrawal money and in that - 2 - record a legal notice was sent by her but no tangible result came out. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is Vice President (Legal) of the aforesaid Company and was dealing only with litigations in various Courts, Forums etc. all over India and he had nothing to do with the day to day affairs of the Company in his capacity as Vice President(Legal). Due to the nature of his job, it was submitted, he being a Business Executive and was required to attend various courts and forum in respect of the legal matters. It was also submitted that he was in no way concerned with financial activities of the Company or deposits of any depositor in the Company. Where the Court should have to deal with an application in terms of Section 205 Cr.P.C. it has to consider whether any useful purpose would be served by requiring personal attendance of the accused or whether progress of the trial is likely to be hampered on account of his absence. In view of what has been held above this application is allowed so far as the petitioners is concerned. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)