IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31401 of 2010 SAVITA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 25.8.2010. Heard. The petitioner’s grievance is that her application filed before the Magistrate Ist Class, Gopalganj in G.R.No.1595 of 2004/Tr.No.826 of 2010 for dispensing with her personal appearance in the above noted case by allowing her to be represented through her counsel was illegally refused by the learned Magistrate and the same was affirmed by the order passed on 12.7.2010 by the learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Cr.Revision No.195 of 2010. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has reiterated the same ground which was taken by the petitioner before both the courts below that she was a pardanasheen lady and was residing at Fazil Nagar, P.S.Fazil Nagar, District-Kushi Nagar(U.P.) which could be a hardship to the petitioner in attending the court by all the way coming from her above noted place of resident to Gopalganj. The other contention I have already noticed is that the petitioner being a pardanasheen ,was not likely to appear at a 2 public place like a court room. The case was initiated through a FIR which was registered vide Gopalganj P.S.Case No.245 of 2004 under Section 498A of the Penal Code. The petitioner’s name appears at sl.no.2 of the column of the accused and her address as appearing therein is ward no.3 Saraiya, P.S. & District-Gopalganj. The case was investigated into and final report was submitted resulting in the order of cognizance and summoning and ultimately the case was taken up for trial. The question of appearance could arise only after a person has been summoned to appear before a court. As the case has been investigated into by the police, the assumption is that the address which is appearing in the FIR of a case has been verified by the police and that has been found true and, as such, the accused has been sent up under that particular address of resident. That being the fact the contention of the petitioner of residing at a place different from that mentioned in the FIR is not acceptable. The courts below were right in passing the orders. The petition appears of no merit. The same is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )