SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred by petitioner for quashing the order dated 13th July, 2004 passed by Sri Santosh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 350 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, the learned Magistrate has been pleased to reject the petition preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 205, Cr.P.C. praying therein to dispense with his person appearance during the trial subject to any condition.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant (O.P. No. 2) is full brother of petitioner and now become inimical to the petitioner. Only for the purpose of harassment, the complainant has preferred a number of complaint cases against the petitioner including the present complaining petition for the charges u/Ss. 454, 427 and 380, I.P.C. The complainant is the eldest son of Sri Anand Swaroop Gupta, who wants to grab the entire property of his younger brother by way of instituting false cases against his father, Sri Anand Swaroop Gupta, brother i.e. the petitioner as also against Vishnu Dayal Gupta and Naresh Kumar Gupta and for the said purpose, he has already filed another Complaint Case No. 46 of 1999, G,R. No. 2560 of 2000. The whole purpose behind filing the false case is that he is trying to grab the entire property by way of blackmailing and pressuriz - ing his father, Sri Anand Swaroop Gupta and the younger brother. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner is a very busy businessman and cannot give much time to attend the Court. He may be allowed to appear as and when the learned Court feels it necessary. It was further submitted that the petitioner is suffering from acute pain consequent to serious accident resulting in fracture of both of his legs for which he had to undergo rigorous treatment at Delhi and in both of his legs steel rods have been engrafted due to which he is not only disabled from taking up any heavy work or load, but also feels difficulty in standing for a long period. He has been advised complete rest to his legs and avoid any strain in legs and the waist. It. was submitted that the petitioner having shown sufficient grounds, the Magistrate should have dispensed with the personal attendance of the petitioner and permit him to appear through his pleader. In support of his submission, Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon certain cases which are detailed hereunder. (1) Ravi Singh v. State of Bihar, 1980 Cri LJ 330 Decision of the Patna High Court; (ii) Ram Harsh Das v. State, 1998 (1) All PLR 495, Decision of the Patna High Court; (Hi) Nadebasi Maji v. State of Bihar, 1999 BCCR 820, Decision of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court and (iv) Dr. Prern Agrawal v. State of Bihar, 2001 (3) East CC 87 (Pat) Decision of the Patna High Court.

(3.) Counsel for the O. P. No. 2 submitted that the petitioner and some other accused had earlier filed a quashing application being Cr.M.P. No. 1056 of 2003 against the order taking cognizance in Complaint Case No. 350 of 2003 but it was refused by this Court vide order dated 20th July, 2004. The Court observed that no ground was made out to interfere with the order taking cognizance or the entire criminal proceeding. The relevant facts and grounds taken in the present case were taken into consideration by this Court in the said Cr.M.P. No. 1056 of 2003. The O. P. No. 2 has also disputed the fact that the petitioner, Sushil Kumar Gupta is not able to attend the Court physically because of his disability and illness. It was submitted that the petitioner, Sushil Kumar Gupta has lodged four cases against the O. P. No. 2. namely, Pawan Kumar Gupta, as detailed hereunder. (i) Complaint case No. 689 of 2000 filed on 17th November, 2000 u/Ss. 452. 323, 324, 386 at 379, I.P.C. (ii) Complaint case No. 224 of 2001 u/Ss. 379, 467, 468, 471 and 196, I.P.C. (iii) Lower Bazar P. S. Case No. 36 of 2001 u/Ss. 379, 467, 468 and 471. I.P.C. and fiv) Mohammadpur (Gopalganj) P. S. case No. 32 of 2003 u/Ss. 341, 379. 323, 504 and 34, I.P.C. In all the aforesaid cases, petitioner, Sushil Kumar Gupta had been attending the Court and has given his evidence in the complaint case on oath u/S. 202, Cr.P.C. and In those cases, O.P. No. 2 is attending the Court regularly. It was submitted that if the petitioner Sushil Kumar Gupta is otherwise not busy and physically fit to appear before the Court in all the eases preferred by him, he cannot take plea that he is a busy businessman and physically unfit.