Supreme Court allows exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 CrPC in matrimonial dispute: Rameshwar Yadav vs. State of Bihar (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 16, 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 210
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J.
Can a court deny an accused person exemption from appearing in court simply because they are healthy and the court believes their presence might facilitate reconciliation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue, clarifying the scope of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with the power of a Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused. This judgment arose from a case where the accused, residing far from the trial court, sought exemption from personal appearance, which was rejected by the Magistrate and subsequently by the High Court. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, delivered the judgment, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint filed by the second respondent against her husband, Arnesh Kumar, and his family members, including the appellants. The complaint alleged offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Magistrate, finding a prima facie case, summoned all the accused. The accused, including the appellants, sought anticipatory bail. Non-bailable warrants were issued against them on December 23, 2012. The appellants, who were residing in Pune, Maharashtra, filed an application on January 17, 2013, seeking a recall of the non-bailable warrants and exemption from personal appearance, citing their distance from the court. While anticipatory bail was granted to all the accused except Arnesh Kumar, the Magistrate rejected their application for exemption from personal appearance on August 13, 2013.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate rejected the application for exemption from personal appearance on the grounds that the accused were healthy, their presence was required for conciliation, and their appearance was necessary for the case. The accused then filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the Patna High Court, challenging the Magistrate’s order. The High Court dismissed the application, introducing a new ground that an application for exemption under Section 205 CrPC can only be made at the stage of first appearance. The High Court stated that since the accused had already appeared after obtaining pre-arrest bail, a subsequent application under Section 205 CrPC was not maintainable. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not address the reasons given by the Magistrate for rejecting the application.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined two key provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

• Section 205 CrPC: This section empowers a Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and allow them to appear through their pleader. Sub-section (2) of Section 205 CrPC states, “But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner hereinbefore provided.”
• Section 317 CrPC: This section allows a Judge or Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused at any stage of an inquiry or trial if they are satisfied that it is not necessary in the interests of justice or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 317 CrPC states, “At any stage of an inquiry or trial under this Code, if the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the Court is not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in Court, the Judge or Magistrate may, if the accused is represented by a pleader, dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of such accused.”

Arguments

The appellants argued that the Magistrate erred in rejecting their application for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 CrPC. They contended that the Magistrate’s reasons for rejection were not valid and that their application was filed before they appeared in court after obtaining pre-arrest bail. They also highlighted the long distance between their residence in Pune and the trial court in Patna, which made regular appearances difficult. The High Court’s view that an application under Section 205 CrPC can only be made at the stage of first appearance was also challenged by the appellants.

The State, on the other hand, supported the Magistrate’s order and the High Court’s decision, arguing that the presence of the accused was necessary for the proceedings and that the application was not maintainable after the accused had appeared in court. The State did not specifically address the distance issue or the grounds given by the Magistrate.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that an application under Section 205 CrPC can only be made at the stage of first appearance of the accused.
2. Whether the Magistrate was justified in rejecting the application for exemption from personal appearance based on the reasons given.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any case laws or books in this judgment. The Court primarily interpreted Sections 205 and 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court interpreted Section 205 CrPC* to mean that a Magistrate has the power to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused at any stage of the proceedings, not just at the first appearance. The court also held that the Magistrate erred in rejecting the application on the grounds that the accused was healthy and their presence was needed for conciliation. The court further noted that Section 317 CrPC* also empowers the Magistrate to exempt a person from personal appearance at any stage of an inquiry or trial.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The factual error of the High Court in holding that the application under Section 205 CrPC was made after the first appearance of the accused.
• The Magistrate’s failure to consider the grounds for exemption put forth by the accused, such as their residence in Pune and the long distance from the trial court.
• The Magistrate’s reasons for rejecting the application were deemed invalid, as they were not based on any legal or factual impediment.
• The Court emphasized that both Sections 205 and 317 CrPC empower the Magistrate to grant exemptions from personal appearance at any stage of the proceedings.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual errors made by the High Court and the Magistrate, as well as the correct interpretation of the law. The factual aspects of the case weighed more heavily in the court’s decision, as the court focused on the Magistrate’s failure to consider the facts presented by the appellants.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, stating that the High Court was incorrect in holding that an application under Section 205 CrPC can only be made at the stage of first appearance. The court noted that the application was filed before the accused appeared in court after obtaining pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court also found that the Magistrate’s reasons for rejecting the application were not valid as the Magistrate did not consider the grounds given by the accused for seeking exemption. The court emphasized that the Magistrate had the power to grant exemption at any stage, as per both Sections 205 and 317 of the CrPC. The court observed that “The Magistrate committed error in not adverting to the grounds taken for praying the exemption and rejected the application on the reasons which were unfounded.” The court further stated, “The Magistrate under Section 205 sub-Section (2) Cr.P.C. is empowered at any stage to direct personal appearance of the accused hence as and when personal appearance of the accused is required the Magistrate is empowered to issue necessary orders if so decides.”

Key Takeaways

• A Magistrate can dispense with the personal attendance of an accused at any stage of the proceedings, not just at the first appearance.
• Magistrates must consider the specific grounds presented by the accused when deciding on applications for exemption from personal appearance.
• Reasons such as the accused being healthy or the need for conciliation are not valid grounds for rejecting an application for exemption.
• The distance between the accused’s residence and the trial court is a valid ground for seeking exemption from personal appearance.
• Magistrates have the power to direct personal appearance of the accused at any stage under Section 205(2) CrPC if required.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and the Magistrate, and allowed the application filed by the appellants under Section 205 CrPC, thereby granting them exemption from personal appearance. The court clarified that the Magistrate is not precluded from passing appropriate orders under Section 205(2) CrPC if and when personal appearance of the appellants is required.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for exemption from personal appearance can be made at any stage of the proceedings, not just at the first appearance. This judgment clarifies that Magistrates have the power to grant such exemptions and must consider the specific grounds presented by the accused. The judgment also emphasizes that the Magistrate can direct personal appearance of the accused at any stage under Section 205(2) CrPC if required. This ruling reinforces the principle that the convenience of the accused must be considered in judicial proceedings, especially when they reside far from the trial court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rameshwar Yadav vs. State of Bihar clarifies that an application for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 CrPC can be made at any stage of the proceedings, not just at the first appearance. The court also emphasized that Magistrates must consider the specific grounds presented by the accused and that reasons such as the accused being healthy or the need for conciliation are not valid grounds for rejecting such applications. This ruling ensures that the convenience of the accused is taken into account, especially when they reside far from the trial court.