IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32803 of 2009 1. Nilam Devi @ Neelam Kumari, wife of Sri Ramratan Prasad, resident of Vibhutikhand, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow, U.P. 2. Krishna Devi, wife of Sri Anand Bihari Prasad, 3. Subhash Kumar Arya, son of Sri Anand Bihari Prasad, 4. Anand Bihari Prasad, son of Late Chokhu Mahto, 5. Mrityunjay Prasad, 6. Pramod Kumar, both sons of Sri Anand Bihari Prasad, petitioners 2 to 6 residents of Town Barhi (Gaya Road), PS Barhi, district Hazaribagh, Jharkhand – petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Anamika Devi, wife of Sri Subhash Kumar Arya, resident of Barhi (Barhi Gaya Road), PS Barhi, district Hazaribagh, Jharkhand – opp. parties. 2 4.1.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioners have filed this application against the order, dated 13.8.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 339C/2006 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nalanda by which the court has rejected the petition filed under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A complaint case was instituted under section 498A of the Penal Code against the petitioners for allegedly torturing the complainant-opposite party no.2 on the ground that her father refused to provide Colour TV, motor cycle and Fridge. The matter was heard and cognizance taken and notice was issued to the opposite parties- petitioners. After notice the petitioners filed a petition under section 205 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the order passed by this court in the case of Amt. Aruna Malhotra vs. Union of India, 2009 (3) PLJR 673. In that case the allegation was that the truck belonged to a lady who lived out side the State. The allegation was 2 that Ganja was found in her truck. The court on consideration of the materials found that there is no direct evidence to show that Aruna Malhotra had knowledge that Ganja was being carried in her truck. The court also referred to several cases while deciding the issue. Subsequently the court had referred to the case of Ram Harsh Das vs. State of Bihar, 1998 (1) PLJR 502 wherein it has been held as follows : “The power referred to in Section 205(1) of the Code is discretionary. Even in cases where the provision is applicable, the Magistrate has to consider the question of dispensing with the personal appearance in reasonable manner. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for deciding the question of grant or refusal of the prayer for dispensing with the personal appearance. In petty cases, the court should be liberal in granting exemption from personal appearance, but will not exercise such power in the cases of serious nature including the offence involving moral turpitude. The court has to consider the nature of the allegations, conduct of the accused and the inconvenience likely to be caused to the accused due to his appearance in the court and after relevant consideration at the time deciding the question of dispensing with the personal appearance. No categorization of cases where the power is to be exercised under section 205 of the Code can be made but generally. Purdanashin woman, old and sick persons, factory workers and labourers, busy business people or public functionaries are to be given the benefit of the said provision.” 3 Considering the allegations I find that no special grounds are made out except for the case of Nilam Devi, petitioner no.1 who resides at Lucknow and is not residing within the State of Bihar. In the present case considering the allegations I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, so far it relates to petitioners 2 to 6. This petition is dismissed. However, as far as petitioner Nilam Devi is concerned, the order is set aside on the ground that she is married sister-in-law living at Gomati Nagar, Lucknow, U.P. and as such she should be granted the benefit of section 205 of the Cr.P.C. In the result, this application is allowed in part, so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)