(1.) The sole petitioner, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 7.4.2011 passed by Smt. Mausmi Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 760 (C) of 2010. whereby, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for being represented through his counsel.
(2.) Short fact of the case is that the opposite party No.2, who is wife of the petitioner, filed a complaint which was registered as Complaint Case No. 760(C) of 2010, in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, alleging therein commission of offences by the accused persons, including the petitioner, for the offence under Sections 325, 326. 307, 498A, 147 & 148 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged by the complainant that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 22.5.1998 according to Muslim rites and amount of "Dain Mehar" was fixed for "Nikah" as Rs. 25,001. It was alleged that after solemnization of marriage parents and family members of the complainant had given gifts and ornaments to the petitioner worth Rs. 8,00,000 and after "Ruksati" she went to her matrimonial house and it was noticed that from the very beginning behaviour of the accused persons was not satisfactory. It was also alleged that the petitioner was provided a job through brother of the complainant in Kuwait. It has also been alleged that the petitioner was frequently coming from Kuwait and several offences were committed. The accused persons, particularly the petitioner, being husband, started deserting the opposite party No. 2, the wife of petitioner. It has also been disclosed that out of wedlock of the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2, one male child namely, Belal Ahmad, was born on 13.2.2000, who was in custody of the mother i.e. the opposite party No. 2. The petitioner and family members had tortured the opposite party No. 2 mentally as well as physically, and thereafter, the complaint case was filed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offences and transferred the case to the Court of Smt. Mausami Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Patna, under Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for S.A. and trial of the case. After coming to know about the pendency of the complaint case, the petitioner, on 10.1.2010, got a petition filed under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to allow him to be represented by a counsel of his choice. However, the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order i.e. the order dated 7.4.2011, has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner and fixed the case for appearance.
(3.) Sri S.N.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Jitendra Narain Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order has argued that the learned Magistrate has miserably failed to appreciate that the petitioner is doing job in Kuwait and from there it would be very difficult for him to regularly appear in the proceeding before the Trial Court. He submits that one of the main objects under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. is early disposal of the proceeding before the Court below and in absence of allowing the petitioner to be represented through his counsel it would be difficult to get the trial concluded at an early date.