IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 830/2009 Rajesh Mahesh Gupta …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors. …….Respondents November 5, 2009 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2008, Rajesh Mahesh Gupta v. State & Ors., whereby petitioner has been directed to appear before the court in person on 6.11.2009. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. Brief facts of this case are that a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed by the respondent no. 2 & 3 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 19 of 2008 and the same was decided ex parte by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar vide order dated 20.11.2008 holding petitioner guilty of domestic violence against his wife i.e. the respondent no. 3 Smt. Alka Rajesh Gupta and accordingly, the CJM, Haridwar directed the petitioner to pay her the compensation holding her entitled to get the same. Against the aforesaid order dated 20.11.2008, petitioner preferred an appeal before the District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar which is pending disposal. On 28.10.2009, the aforesaid appeal was listed for arguments. Petitioner/appellant was also directed to appear 2 in person on the said date. He moved an application seeking exemption from his personal appearance. By the impugned order dated 28.10.2009, the appellate court, while allowing application of the petitioner/appellant for exemption from personal appearance on that day, has only directed the petitioner/appellant to appear personally in the court on 6.11.2009. The court below has further directed that no more exemption or adjournment shall be granted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner very strenuously argued that as per the law, the appellant cannot be directed by the appellate court to appear in person, but he failed to show any such legal provision which debars the appellate court from calling the party to appear in person before the court. No doubt, exemption from personal appearance can be granted to a litigant for a particular date on the basis of some special and inevitable circumstances, but the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Courts definitely can direct the parties to appear in person. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 28.10.2009 does not suffer with any illegality or infirmity and it warrants no interference by this Court. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 5.11.2009 PRABODH