Purpose Of Exemption From Personal Appearance U/S 205 CrPC Is To See That No Unnecessary Harassment Is Caused To Accused: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court observed that the purpose of exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 CrPC is to see that no unneccessary harrasment is caused to accused and no prejudice is caused to complainant.
In this case, the complaint was filed against the accused alleging that they induced the complainant to sell the sheets but had supplied damaged ones. The accused filed an application under Section 205 of CrPC before the Trial Court, but the application was rejected. As a result, the accused approached the High Court.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “The purpose of exemption under Section 205 Cr.P.C is that the order of the learned Magistrate should be such which does not make any unnecessary harassment to the accused and at the same time does not cause any prejudice to the complainant and the learned court is required to ensure that exemption from personal appearance granted to the accused is not an abuse or delay the trial."
Advocate Ajay Kumar Sah appeared for the Petitioner, Special Public Prosecutor Vineet Kumar Vashistha appeared for the State, and Advocate Anurag Kashyap appeared for the Respondent.
The Petitioners claimed to be proprietors of Balmukund Sponge and Iron Limited and Balmukund Cement and Roofings Limited. A Complaint was filed alleging that the Petitioners induced the Respondent to sell their asbestos sheets in his market. It was further alleged that the Petitioners supplied damaged sheets, refused to settle the claim of Rs.22.50 Lacs, and, as a result, the Respondent had to file a complaint accusing them of deliberate and fraudulent cheating. A Petition was filed before the High Court seeking to quash the order of the Trial Court, whereby the Petition filed under Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was rejected.
The Court noted that the case seems to stem from a commercial dispute, warranting a petition under Section 205 CrPC. While acknowledging the discretionary nature of such petitions, the Court emphasized the need to avoid unnecessary harassment of the accused (Respondents), particularly when they hold significant roles in a company.
Furthermore, the Bench observed that evidence should ideally be recorded in the presence of the accused, but it can be done in their absence if their counsel is present. The Court reiterated that the purpose of granting exemption under Section 205 CrPC is to prevent undue harassment to the accused without prejudicing the complainant.
Citing the case of Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. and others, [(2001) 7 SCC 401], the Court emphasized that its primary concern is ensuring the efficient administration of criminal justice and preventing any delays in the trial process. Accordingly, the Court overturned the impugned order dated permitting the petitioners to be excused from personal appearances under certain conditions.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and set aside the impugned Order.
Cause Title: Nawal Kumar Kanodia v The State of Jharkhand
