IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15886 of 2009 1.BRAMHE CHANDRA NIGAM S/O SHRI KRISHNA CHANDRA NIGAM PRESENTLY POSTED AS THE GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, HEAD OFFICE, NEW DELHI. 2.KUMAR KANTI DAS GUPTA, S/O BIMAL KUMAR DAS GUPTA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS INTERNAL SR. AUDITOR, ZONAL AUDIT OFFICE, BHOPAL. 3.GANGA RAM ARYA, S/O SHRI UDAI RAM, PRESENTLY POSTED AS THE CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, STATION ROAD, MORDABAD. --PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAGENDRA KUMAR BANGUR, S/O SHRI BALLABH JEE BANGUR, R/O 401 EMARAT FIRDAUS, EXHIBITION ROAD, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, TOWN & DISTRICT-PATNA. --OPP.PARTY For the Petitioners : Mr. S.D. Sanjay For the State : Mr. Amarendra Prasad A.P.P. 4 09.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application seeking quashing of the order dated 19.01.2009 passed by Sri Md. Habibullah, Judicial Magistrate, first class, Patna, in Complaint Case no. 1615 of 2007 refusing the prayer of the petitioners made under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As it appears from the impugned order, apart from others, the court below has considered as one of the 2 ground to refuse the prayer that there is no direction to the petitioners to appear each and every date. Perhaps, the court below failed to appreciate the scope of provision as contemplated under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows: “205. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused:- (1) Whenever a Magistrate issues a summon, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. (2) But the Magistrate enquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner hereinbefore provided.” It is not imperative in each case for the parties to appear on each and every date. Several directions, in this regard, have already been issued by this Court. Reference may be given to the cases of Vijay Kumar V. State of Bihar; 2006 (1) P.L.J.R. 434 and Pramod Bhashin V. State of Bihar; 2007(4) P.L.J.R. 648. Taking into consideration the main ground taken by the Court below, I find it necessary to remit the matter for re-consideration before the court below. The prayer made by the petitioners in the true ambit of the provision coupled with 3 the direction of the Apex Court and this Court, as mentioned in two aforesaid decisions which have been issued taking into consideration the decision of the Apex Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, the application is allowed and the matter is remitted for reconsideration. The court below is directed to pass appropriate order after hearing the parties on the point. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad