JUDGMENT M.K. Mittal, J.
1. Heard Sri. R. B. Saxena the Learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri. S.B. Singh the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. and perused the record. The learned counsel for the applicant has prayed to delete he names of the applicants No. 4 and 5. He is allowed to do so.
2. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 16.7.05 in case no 530/2005 State v. Laxman and Ors. under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C., and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Court P.S. Kosikalan District Mathura.
3. The brief facts are that opposite party No. 2 Smt. Sunita wife of applicant No. 1 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging that the accused persons ill treated and harassed her and beat her as she could not fulfil dowry demand and was finally turned out of the house on 8th May 2005, at about 10 p.m. Even her nose was broken by the accused applicants. The Learned Magistrate by order dated 5th July 2005 directed for registration and investigation of the case and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against 3 applicants. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., was filed against 5 persons.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the opposite party No. 2 has made false allegations against the applicants and 2 persons have not been charge-sheeted although the allegations are similar against all of them, But on this ground charge-Sheet against applicants am not be quashed at this stage. The averments as made in the application under Section 153(3) Cr.P.C., clearly show that there are prima facie allegations against the applicants. The applicants have not filed the statements of the complainant and other witnesses as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has also contended that the police had made efforts for compromise but the complainant did not turn up for compromise and did not agree with the police to withdraw the case. But on this ground also the charge-sheet can not be quashed.
6. The learned counsel for the applicants further contended that the applicants be allowed to be represented through counsel till the stage Of charge. According to the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A., there is no such provision and if the applicants want any exemption regarding their attendance, they have to appear In the court and move application under Section 205 Cr.P.C.
7. As far as the question of exemption of attendance, of the accused Is concerned, the provisions have been made in the Cr.P.C., Udder Sections 205, 273 and 317. If the accused wants exemption from appearance in the court he has to apply to the court concerned for that purpose.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the accused can be allowed to be represented through counsel and in this connection he cited the case of a Chimanlal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1990 (27) ACC page 617. In that matter Sessions trial no 11 of 1990 was pending in the court, which was transferred to the court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge Agra and discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., was claimed by the accused but the learned Judge refused the discharge application. Against that order a revision was filed and the Sessions Judge was directed to hear the revisionist for discharge afresh. In the court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge the learned counsel for the accused moved an application for exemption of personal attendance which was dismissed on the ground that non-bailabie-warrant had already been issued against the revisionist. In that matter it was held by this court that the accused could be permitted to appear through his counsel till the discharge matter was decided. In the instant case the accused has not yet appeared in the court of Magistrate and in the matter of Chiman Lal, the proceedings were pending after commitment in the court of Sessions Judge and therefore this ruling does not help the applicant.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant has further cited the case of Brigadier R.C. Dhingra and Ors. v. The State 1994 JIC 91. In that case the application was filed by the accused for exemption of attendance before the Learned Magistrate on the date when the case was fixed for hearing of the arguments on the point whether the charge should be framed or not, and it has held that for this purpose the presence of the accused was not necessary and arguments could be heard in the absence of the accused. Here the facts are different and the accused has not yet moved any application for exemption of the attendance in the trial court.
10. The learned counsel for the applicant has further cited the case of Mata Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. 1994 J.I.C. 68. In that matter also the application for exemption for personal attendance was rejected by the Learned Magistrate and against that order Criminal Revision was filed in the High Court and it was held that in the circumstances of the case the personal presence of the applicant may be exempted in future.
11. It shows that the accused has to first approach the Trial Court for exemption of attendance. In the instant case the accused has not yet appeared before the Trial Court and has not prayed for exemption of attendance and therefore no such order can be passed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., exempting the attendance till the framing of the charge.
12. It is settled law that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can not be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the code for the redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved party. In a recent case of S.B. Mazumdar and Ors. v. Gujarat State and Anr. 2009, Supreme Court cases 173, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the accused to file applications in terms of Section 205 of the code for dispensing With their personal attendance. It also observed that the Trial Court will do to take note of the same and dispense with the personal attendance by stipulating conditions in terms of Section 205(2) of the Code. It has to be borne in mind that while dealing with an application in terms of Section 205 of the code, the court has to consider whether any Useful purpose would be served by requiring the personal attendance of the accused of whether progress of the trial is likely to be hampered on account of his absence.
13. Therefore, under the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused has to apply for exemption of his attendance in the concerned court.
14. In view of the above facts, I come to the conclusion that the application as file by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.