Jitendra Mohan Nirula @ Jimi vs State of Bihar and Another

Ghanshyam Prasad, J.—This application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the order dated 6.6.2005 passed by Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger in Complaint Case No. 11630/04 thereby and thereunder the petition filed by the petitioner u/s 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected as well as the order dated 21.11.2006 passed by the F.T.C. VI, Munger in Criminal Revision No. 188 of 2005 whereby the F.T.C. has confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate. It appears from the record that this is a case of boucing of cheque of Rs. 1,00000/-. The case is based on complaint petition. The court below has taken cognizance under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Warrant of arrest has also been issued against the petitioner for appearance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a busy person. He has to move the different places, therefore, it is not possible for him to appear on each and every date in the trial court. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite Party No. 2 submits that warrant has already been issued against the petitioner, therefore, the provision of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable in this case. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 relied on a decision reported in 2006 (1) CriLJ 63 (Deva Nand Upadhayay vs. The Union of India) However, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court reported in Manish Gai Vs. State of Bihar .

Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and the Opposite Party No. 2 as well as two decisions cited by them. The recent decision is of the year 2007. In that decision the decision of the Apex Court reported in S.V. Muzumdar and Others Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. and Another, has been relied upon. There is no bar to allow the petition u/s 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even in the case non-bailable warrant of arrest is issued against a person. The offence alleged against the petitioner is of technical nature. Therefore it is expedient in the interest of justice that the petitioner granted benefit of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but with certain conditions that he shall make personal appearance whenever directed by the court.

Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed. Both orders in question are quashed. The trial court is directed to pass order in terms of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with proper condition. The court below is directed to dispose of the case within six months of receipt of this order. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate in the disposal of the case.