NABI HUSSAIN ANSARI Vs. MEMUNA PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this criminal revision under Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 30 -11 -2013 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta in Case No. C/258 of 2013, by which learned Magistrate granted the prayer of the Opposite Party No. 1 under Section 205 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) TWO affidavits of service are filed on behalf of the petitioner and the same are kept with the record. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner filed one petition of complaint before the court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on 26 -03 -2013 praying for forwarding the said petition of complaint to the officer -in -charge of the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for causing investigation. However, learned Magistrate refused to forward the said petition of complaint to the officer -in -charge of the concerned Police Station but took cognizance and after examination of the complainant, that is, the petitioner issued summons against the Opposite Party No. 1 for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No. 1 appeared before the court of learned Magistrate through learned advocate and prayed for exemption from personal appearance before the court of learned Magistrate under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Opposite Party No. 1 was allowed by learned Magistrate on 30 -11 -2013 by passing impugned order which is challenged by way of revision before this court.

(3.) MR . Anirban Mitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 contends that the petitioner has started this criminal case against the Opposite Party No. 1 during the pendency of the civil suit between the parties in connection with the same transaction on which the criminal case is started. Mr. Mitra also submits that the Opposite Party No. 1 is a lady and residing at Rajasthan and on consideration of the same the learned Magistrate can very well grant the prayer for exemption of the Opposite Party No. 1 from personal appearance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Mitra has relied on the decisions reported in : 2008 CRI. L.J. 4558 : 2010 CRI. L.J. 2375 and 2009 CRI. L.J. 2675 in support of his contention that learned Magistrate can grant exemption from personal appearance of the accused person irrespective of whether the case is summons case or warrant case when the accused is a lady and staying at a place far off from the court where the case is pending.