IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAniSGARH AT BILAS CR.M.P.NO.Vo?) OF 2011 IN THE MATTER OF: CJ? Petifioner/Applicant Satish Goenka, S/o Shri Gopichand Goenka, Aged about 39 years, Steel Pvt. Ltd. ' l......t.'-l Direcfor of J.M.G. S ^.^•-^•WS-R/°Tedighat," 'praseBted ^^f^'^Q..!... Lnfronf of Keshwani 'o^-^-''""""""""^.' Oa<«d. VERSUS Respondent/Complainant of Keshwani Markef, Police Station- Khaje Kala, District- Patna, Bihar Ramavtar Agrawal, S/o Shri Pooran Chand Agrawal, Aged about 60 years, Director of Epic Alloy Steel Pvt. Ltd. R/o Krishna Vihar Colony, Dhimarpur, P.S. Kotra Road, Raigarh, District- Raigarh b^* PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 r -i- <fi^WqHfeTtW WTan^r'arws 4- V, •S-^CFTS, frcTCTy. ^.^ff)A-^AU..M\.. sn^t qwe- c^qf^^;) •^ 200 ^tiTwaitg sii^r SB : Hon'ble Shri Hflanindra Mbhan Shrivastava, J. 11.11.2011 Shri Ankit Singhal, counsel fc^ Shri S.K. Tiwari, counsel fortjie respondent. With the consent of learned (jounsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. This petition has been filed dated 23.5.2011 passed by the Chi |)y the petitioner aggrieved by order |f Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh on the complaint of the respondent, wh^ suffering from various ailments transplantation. On this ground.th^ that the case only involves disho WPit?^! Wffi; '•? fet?i •<fiTCTI< ^" .^RTi sn^t the petitioner. eby, petitioner's application under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. for exeifiption from personal appearance on that particular date has been rejecte|d. Learned counsel for the petitfoner contended that the petitioner is and has also undergone kidney petitioner had moved anapplication for exemption from his personal aFJpearance and in the light of the fact lour of cheque and not a case of s^ commission of any heinous offenc^, the learned Court below ought to have adopted a liberal attitude in cctisidering the application. On the other hand, learnedl that the grounds, on which, the pe| considered by learned Magistrate| sufficient to allow the application,| been rightly rejected. From the order impugned, sought exemption stating that he i^ counsel for the respondent submits itioner sought exemption, were dully and the grounds were not found and therefore, the application has t is revealed that the petitioner had suffering from renal failure problem and had great difficulty in uitdertaking journey without proper pTi(TTffE?Iig—I'S/KO—2/2011—1,50,000. /^a^ ^r & ;? \v;S!"»T''wy. •V^ S! ~11 i teaa.^ .^ .^' i, •^•TiTW®,'f^irey a'l^T •wRs'n^ •aeiraff^rwiRi sf^v 'ra?' (-^i^q') -^' 1 reservation. The petitioner had certificates showing that he rem^ined admitted in hospital and had undergone renal transplant operati| below has rejected the application] aitment retated documents show j problems almost 2 years before anji there is no material to show that at that stage, the petitioner is suffei|ing from any ailment or any other medical complications. The submission of the pe] exemption that he is a patient, suff^ not been disputed by anyone. Th^ Patna to attend the criminal proce^dings at Raigarh. It has to be seen that the allegation of commission cheque. Taking into consideration personal appearance, allowing him these circumstances, 1 am inclined ti Accordingly, the order of th; application forexemption from his appear there, unless exempted frorrj Wfeiftq •SPW, -^ •fe'ZT '^Ky<. ^ affifi OT^T also submitted certain discharge 3n on 29.5.2009. The learned Court holding that the operation and the :hat the petitioner had suffered the titioner and the basis for seeking ring from certain renal problems, has petitioner is required to come from of offence does not relate to any heinous case or a grave accusatio(i. Present is a case of dishonour of the totality of the circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the Court tplow ought to have adopted a liberal attitude while considering petition^r's application for exemption from to appear though his counsel. Under 3 interfere in the matter. 's Court below rejecting petitioner's personal appearance and issuing bailable warrant is quashed. Howev^r, the petitioner shall appear before the Court below on or before 12ttDfa:ember, 2011 andshalt continue to his appearance. ,(wmpn.»—!.s/i40—2/2011—i,50,ooo. 1 r -t- liflmrnnil l-Iflilil 11 liiiinirlimiT -3-5:( •^3i<<l!v14, "g'rfhcpTg-^ feTOy ^ 20( Si^Wfell^ wnan^WtiN; Tumane ira-s (xpty^sf) yRirer •Hita'sntn -3' ariifenh wreS ^f fe'ar •TNCTR ^i sfRp'i w^l it is macle~cTMr~TRanniTe~FitFtIoneF~falTsTd appear befoFethe Court below as directed above, thel Court below will be at liberty to take coercive steps to compel productiorj of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly alljowed to the extent indicated above. sd'; ^hrivastava ,lAohan ^lan*"dra *"iu'dg® '^••^' --Y «? L__,.__ __._ m(T1it9^*'l^?in?RT,(FiFltiim'»—1.S/140--2/2011—1,50,000.