ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 31.1.1995 requiring personal appearance of the petitioners in the Court in Criminal Case No. 545 of 1994 under Section 406, I.P.C.

(2.) The relevant facts are not in dispute. The opposite party No. 2, Smt. Namita Anand, daughter of Dr. Anand Swarup Ashthana, a practising physician at Hardoi, was married to petitioner No. 1, Ashutosh Srivastava. The petitioners 2 and 3 are parents of Ashutosh Srivastava. Some differences appear to have arisen between Smt. Namita Anand and the petitioners as a result of which she went back to her parents. A decree of divorce is alleged to have been given. Smt. Namita Anand filed a complaint case under Sections 405/406, I.P.C. which is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi. The complaint has been filed with the allegations that the articles mentioned in the list filed with the complaint were received by her as marriage gifts but have not been returned to her. Earlier summons were issued against the petitioners but they were allegedly not served. Bailable warrants were then issued against the petitioners and served on 11.11.1994 directing appearance on 21.11.1994. The bail bonds were furnished by the petitioners to the police. On the date fixed, the Counsel for the petitioners appeared in the Court. An application was moved before the Court for exemption with the averment that since they have furnished bonds to the police, it is not necessary for them to appear personally in the Court and they may be permitted to appear through a Lawyer. This prayer was opposed on behalf of the opposite party. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has rejected this prayer-pf the petitioners.

(3.) The petitioners have alleged that there was genuine apprehension regarding safety and security of the petitioners and there is no dispute about the identity of the petitioners nor it is otherwise legally required that they should be personally present in the Court. It is also alleged that earlier an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was moved by the opposite party No. 2 and the petitioners had -moved a transfer application wherein stay was granted by the Court.