[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL W.P.NO.1719 OF 2008 Shri.Rameshchandra Parakh and Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Shri.Dilip Singh Barla and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.S.K.Shinde Adv. i/b Mr.Sagar Kasar advocate for petitioners Mr.Vibhav D.Baria Adv. i/b Mr.Vikas Takalakar Adv. for Respondent No.1 Mr.A.S.Shitole A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 17, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 17, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 17, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Leave to amend is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners-original accused, learned advocate for the respondent no.1-original complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Complaint came to be filed against the petitioners under Section 506 of IPC. The said complaint came to be filed on 27.7.2007. In the said case, process came to be issued under Section [-2-] 506 of IPC against the petitioners on 1.8.2007. Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition has been preferred. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioners has contended that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. He submitted that the said provisions are mandatory. He further submitted that the said order is against the provisions of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., hence, the said order needs to be quashed. 4. Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. and in particular the amended provisions which came into force on 23.6.2006 reads that "Any Magistrate on receipt of complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may if he thinks fit (and shall in case where the accused is residing at the place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction) postpone the issue of process against the accused and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by Police Officer or such other person as if he thinks [-3-] fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding." Admittedly, the complaint was filed at Nasik. The petitioner nos.1 to 3 are residents of Chattisgarh and petitioner no.4 is resident of Nagpur. It is seen that the said process was not issued on the very same day when the complaint was filed, but it was issued on 1.8.2007 after the learned Magistrate has fully applied his mind. 5. To issue process is a matter of discretion of the Magistrate. In the present case, it is seen that the complaint was filed under Sections 503, 504 and 506 of IPC. In spite of the fact that the complaint was filed under the aforesaid three Sections, the learned Magistrate considered the material on record and issued process on 1.8.2007 only under Section 506 of IPC. The reason for the amendment in Section 202 of Cr.P.C. is that false complaints are filed against persons residing at far off place simply to harass them. In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before [-4-] summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction, he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is true that when the accused persons are from out of the State, there are chances of making false complaint but in the present case petitioners themselves admitted that they were present at the house of the respondent on 21.5.2007. In this view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity with the orders of the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge, hence, no interference is called for. 6. At this stage, the learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that three petitioners being resident of Chattisgarh and one being resident of Nagpur, it is difficult for them to attend the trial Court on all the dates and prayed that exemption from personal appearance before the trial Court may be granted to the petitioners. Looking to the above fact and looking to the age of the petitioners, the learned Magistrate shall grant [-5-] exemption from personal appearance to the petitioners except on the dates when the learned Magistrate is of the opinion that the presence of the petitioners is absolutely necessary. On such date, on notice being given by the learned Magistrate to the petitioners, the petitioners shall attend the Court on that particular date. 7. Writ petition is disposed of in above terms. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]