'.^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILX CR. M.P. N0.^4 OF 2011 y IN THE MAHER OF: Petitioner/Applicant •»»**•' .^^^^:x gg<«A....--A-t-^ VERSUS Respondenf/Complainant «ngtoBench Satish Goehka, S/o Shri Gopichand Goenka, Aged about 39 years, - Director of J.M.G. Steel Pvt. Ltd. R/o Tedighat, Infront of Keshwani Market, Pqtna, Police Station- Khaje Kala, Disfrict- 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, Disfrict- Raigarh PETITION UNDER SECTION 48^ OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 R^ ss-ssa '-HC—7& ^. 'S^f •<<]Aiitf<f, yql'M'is, fsitriiy^i ..S::y.ltyA^./.^l. a'l'^r^il^w iqt StI^I WTRi' sn^r'T^r (' TOiw^feisn^i SB : Hon'ble Shfi MajiindraiMohten Shrivastava, J. 11.11.2011 Shri Ankit Singhal, counsel forjthe petitioner. Shri S.K. Tiwari, counsel for th With the consent of learned cc ^ respondent. junsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. This petition has been filed b^ the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 23.5.2011 passed by the Chief complaint of the respondent, wher Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. for exemjition from personal appearance on that particular date has been rejectec). Learned counsel for the petitiqner contended that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments transplantation. On this ground, the for exemption from his personal ap^ ^l^'t^ 'RWcTf ^f 'f^£tTf^T^R ^•sffiCTsn^i IJudicial Magistrate, Raigarh on the ^by, petitioner's application under that the case only involves dishon(3ur of cheque and not a case of commission of any heinous offence have adopfed a liberal attitude in con^idering the application. On the other hand, learned 4 that the grounds, on which, the peti considered by learned Magistrate syfficient to allow the application, been rightly rejected. . From the order impugned, it sought exemption stating that he is and had great difficulty in un<] nd has also yndergone kidney letitioner had moved an application iarance and in the lightof the fact the leamed Court below ought to jounsel for the respondent submits |oner sought exemption, were dully |and the grounds were not found ^nd therefore, the application has |is revealed that the petitioner had ^uffering from renal failure probtem ertaking journey without proper 'w"^:: • y / XI-HG—7S ^sf •^WKW^ <sn\wi<c, hv\wy. aiI^I^ilfyTO- TWan^FWWT 3fi^?r 'tpra? (^3^1) TOiWt^feran^i —^ TesenTaliorT—me uelitiuiiyi liad" certificates showing that he remaini "Wl 200 +l«fri<fl-lwwttf fei<a <^^|< ^stRiiTsn^r. ed admitted in hospital and had undergone rena] transplant operatiorj on 29.5.2009. The learned Court below has rejected the application, ailment related documents show th problems almost 2 years before and ^iolding that the operation and the at the petitioner had suffered the :here is no material to show that at that stage, the petitioner is sufferirfg from any ailment or any other medical complications. The submission of the peti1|ioner and the basis for seeking exemption that he is a patient, sufferi not been disputed by anyone. The Patna to attend the criminal proceec 1g from certain renal problems, has letitioner is required to come from ings at Raigarh. It has tobe seen that the allegation of commission <)f offence does not relate to any heinous case or a grave accusation| Present is a case of dishonour of cheque. Taking into consideration t the opinion of this Court, the Court b^low ought to have adopted a liberal attitude while considering petitione fie totality of the circumstances, in 's application for exemption from personal appearance, allowing him tji appear though his counsel. Under these circumstances, 1 am inclined tcj interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the order of th^ Court below rejecting petitioner's application for exemption from hisj personal appearance and issuing bailable warrant is quashed. Howev^r, the petitioner shall appear before the Court below on or before 12 D^cember. 2011 and shall continue to appear there, unless exempted from his appearance. K1' ^ '^E'.^ 3?TOi'Wfe)'% wisffr^rwiRi Tumane s! .;_— L- ^z g^r ^Fn^T, •^TTITWS^ tar^ray sn^I 7W) (•^{•a^'si? yrarocHftgsn^i -3> It is made clear that if the Court below as directed above, the coercive steps to compel production WifsnN ST"?^ 4 fyg ^iR^R' ^- ?4Rr'i sn^i t)etitioner fails to appear before the lCourt below will be at liberty to take of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly all^wed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge SWStl^lSm jjliuili.tll, (WlRira—tS/140—2/2011—1,50,000.