SITA KUMARI Vs. LALIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications relate to Crl. Misc. Application No. 7226 of 1989 and contain the prayer for setting aside, the order dated 3rd August, 1989 passed in Cr). Misc. Application No. 7226 of 1989 directing opp. party No. 1, Lalit Kumar, his brothers, Jagdish Prasad and Audesh, Smt. Bhagwan Dei wife of Audesh, Smt. Rajo wife of Jagdish Prasad and Ramji Lal to appear before the Magistrate concerned through counsel and further directing that they shall not be compelled to appear in person unless they are required for their statements or for Judgment or if their counsel withdraws.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the present application are that on 26th July, 1977, Smt. Sita Kumari was married with Lalit Kumar before the Marriage Officer under Special Marriage Act. Wedlock was blessed with a son. But unfortunately their relations became estranged and they have been living separately. Smt. Sita Kumari has been working at a Health Centre and living in District Saharanpur. Lalit Kumar, his brothers and sister-in-laws have been living in District Agra. Ramji Lal is a resident of a village in Firozabad which is now an independent district. Smt. Sita Kumari filed criminal complaint against Lalit Kumar, his brothers and sister-in-laws and Ramji Lal for offences under Sections 498A/406/109 I.P.C. Learned Magistrate, seized of her complaint, summoned Lalit Kumar, his brothers and sister-in-laws and Ramji Lal and directed issue of summons as to them under Section 204(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Lalit Kumar, his brothers, his sister-in-laws and Ramji Lal filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings in complaint case filed by Smt. Sita Kumari. After hearing their counsel at the admission stage and in absence of Smt. Sita Kumari this court disposed of their petition inter-alia with above direction.

(3.) Now Smt. Sita Kumari has filed these two applications against Lalit Kumar and State of U.P. only. Her contentions are that the direction permitting Lalit Kumar and others to appear through counsel was issued without notice to her and that in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. it was suppressed that the Magistrate had already issued non-bailable warrants for appearance of the accused of the case. It has been vehemently urged that only the Magistrate could have exempted personal attendance of the accused and this court had no jurisdiction to exempt their personal attendance. It has been asserted on behalf of Smt. Sita Kumari that exemption of personal attendance before the Magistrate has given a privilege to the accused and they will never appear before the Magistrate.