IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.08.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM Crl.O.P. No. 15837 of 2010 H.F.Shajahan .. Petitioner/Accused 3 Vs. M/s.Agate Finance Ltd., Rep. By Mr.Kanagasabai 4, Ramakrishna Street T.Nagar Chennai – 600 017 .. Respondent/Complainant This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai to dispose of the petition filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C in Crl.M.P.No.641 of 2010 in C.C.No.10129 of 2003 without insisting on the petitioner's personal appearance. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shanmugasundaram Senior Counsel for Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondent : M/s.Saibharath Illan ***** O R D E R The petitioner, who is the third accused in a case pending in Crime No.10129 of 2003 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai seeks a direction to the lower court to dispose of the petition filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. The case is one where offences under Sections 120B, 406 and 409 IPC are lodged against the petitioner and two other accused. 2. The ground on which the petitioner has sought the relief of dispensing with appearance of Section 205 Cr.P.C is that he is a Minister of the Union Territory of Pondicherry, he is holding the Chairmanship of several societies and organizations and is also Chairman of various Government and Legislature committees. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Informing that the petitioner has moved a discharge petition, the petitioner further informs that his daily official programmes are very closely scheduled and that as a person in responsibility, he attends to several developmental programmes. He conducts various meetings with higher officials of the various departments. In short, the contention of the petitioner is that given the nature of his functions and his various pre-occupations, it would be necessary that his personal appearance be dispensed with by the lower Court. The petitioner has further informed that the complainant is trying to tarnish his image and that his non-appearance may not hinder or delay the proceedings of the above case. He also has informed that his non-appearance would not be challenged and that he will be represented by a counsel, who would attend on all hearing dates and co-operate with the lower Court for expeditious trial of the case. 3. Urging the above and informing of several decisions viz., (2001) 7 SCC 401, Para 17 (Bhaskar Industries Ltd., Vs. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd., and others), 1988 Cri.L.J.1573 (Raghunath Das and others V. Hari Mohan Pani) and decision of this Court in 1988 (1) Crimes 222 (Manager, V.G.Panneerdas & Co., Madras and 4 others Vs. Nataraja Thevar), towards informing that even the initial appearance can be dispensed with, the learned Senior Counsel would impress the need for early disposal of the petition pending before the lower Court for a period over two months. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would strenuously object to any direction being passed by this Court as it is his contention that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and any order at the present juncture would derail the same. He would submit that on earlier occasions petitioner's requests have been favourably considered and as such the petitioner may move further application before the lower Court under Section 317 Cr.P.C on the next hearing date. Adopting such an exercise would work towards arriving of the settlement. Learned counsel also had impressed upon the Court that sum in dispute is about two crores and earlier attempt to quash proceedings in Crl.O.P.No.26808 of 2003 had been negatived by this Court on the ground that by earlier orders dated 15.04.2010 in Crl.R.C.No.1436 of 2003, this Court had set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate dismissing the protest petition and directed the lower Court to take protest petition on file and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. It is pursuant to such order that case has been taking cognisance of. In dismissing the quash petition, this Court had done so being satisfied with the contention raised that entertainment of the quash petition would amount to a review of its earlier order passed in Cr.R.C.No.1436 of 2003, which would be impermissible under Section 362 Cr.P.C. It is informed that order of this Court was unsuccessfully challenged before the Apex Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Given the rival submissions and in the background put forth, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/complainant, if a direction is issued to the lower Court to consider the petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C, as the decision upon such petition would be solely at the discretion of the lower Court and upon the merits of the case. 6. Accordingly, this petition shall stand allowed and the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet is directed to dispose of the petition before it within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. gpa Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai 2.Do through The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras – 600 104. + 1 cc to Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, Advocate SR No.57777 + 1 cc to Mr. Sai Bharath Illan, Advocate SR No.57712 MS(CO) SR/11.8.2010 Crl.O.P. No. 15837 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/