IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.522 of 2008 1. SUNITA DEVI, WIFE OF BIJAY PRASAD. 2. GAYATRI DEVI, WIFE OF NAGENDRA PRASAD. 3. SANGITA DEVI, WIFE OF SUNDAR PRASAD. 4. KIRAN DEVI, WIFE OF SURENDRA PRASAD. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-SABLAK SARAI, POLICE STATION-KURTHA, DISTRICT-ARWAL. ………………………………………………………...PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. YAMUNA SAO, SON OF LATE GANGA SAO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SABLAKSARAI, P.S. KURTHA, DISTRICT-ARWAL. ………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mahendra Prasad Bharti, Advocate. ------------- O R D E R The four persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No.601 of 2006 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 19.11.2007 passed therein by Sri V.K. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jehanabad, whereby he has been pleased to reject the petition of the petitioners for their personal attendance . Briefly stated , the prosecution case which is based on the complaint petition submitted by one Yamuna Sao, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, stating therein that at around 4 P.M. on 9.10.2006 while he was sitting in his house, all the accused persons variously armed came there and started demanding the keys of the house at Masaurhi from the complainant and when he refused to handover the same the - 2 - accused started assaulting him with fists and slaps and accused no.4 , Bhushan Prasad, is said to have taken away the key from the complainant and accused no.9, Upendra Sao, took away the box of the petitioner wherein Rs.1500/- apart from clothes of the complainant were kept. On reaching police station to lodge his complaint case the complainant did not take any action since both the accused were present there. After holding inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the cognizance was taken under Sections 341, 323 and 379 I.P.C. against all the accused persons. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the complainant and summons were directed to be issued. The grievance of the petitioners is that all of them are pardanasheen ladies and no allegation of commission of any overtact has been attributed to any of them. It has also been submitted that petitioner no.4, Kiran Devi, is the wife of accused no.8, Sundar Prasad and even so far as she is concerned, no specific allegation has been attributed to her. That apart, it has been submitted that, the offences whereunder cognizance has been taken are neither serious nor their attendance in court on each and every date is required. The learned counsel for O.P. No.2 sought to justify the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Section 205 Cr.P.C. gives a discretion to the court to exempt a person from personal appearance till such time his personal - 3 - appearance was necessary for the trial. This privilege cannot be withheld even if the women petitioners are found to be gainfully employed or are not pardanasheen ladies. The other aspect is that no gainful purpose would be served by their presence in court on each and every date more so when they are represented through their lawyers. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the impugned order refusing the prayer of the petitioners to be exempted under Section 205 Cr.P.C. is hereby quashed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 19th of December, 2008. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.