Jethi Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

penal code - sections 323, 147 & 451 and criminal procedure code--section 482--inherent--powers of high courts petitioner lady of 55-60 years--trial court rejecting her petition for exemption from personal attendance--held, order of trial court is arbitrary; (ii) high court has ample power to interfere when order is against natural justice; and (iii) petitioner is exempted from personal attendance in court;she is a lady of about 55-60 years of age; and the trial court has wrongly rejected her application for exemption of the personal attendance.;the order of the trial court is an arbitrary one. secondly, i do not agree with the argument that this court has no power to grant-petitioner under section 482, cr pc. the section is very clear, and in the interest of justice, this court has ample power to interfere in the. orders of the trial court, which are not according to the principles of natural justice.;the order of the trial court dated 9th august, 1989, is set aside, and, the personal attendance of the petitioner in the court is exempted, and she. is permitted to be represented by her counsel.;(b) penal code - sections 323, 147 and 451 and criminal procedure code--section 482--inherent powers--accused not served in 2 years--held, complainant not serious and intention is to haress accused was the duty of the complainant also to have got the service done on the accused persons. two years have passed and the accused persons have not been served, shows that the complainant himself is not keen to proceed with the case, and his intention is only to harass the accused persons by filing a complaint.;petition accepted - .....single day, the petitioner has attended the court; and one of the accused is still to be seryed. his argument was that it is discretion of the trial court whether or not to grant exemption of personal attendance.4. considered arguments. no doubt, granting exemption is a discretion of the court, but, it is always expected that the court would exercise this discretion judiciously. what i find is that the order of the trial court is an arbitrary one. secondly, i do not agree with the argument that this court has ample power to grant-petition under section 482 cr. pc. the section is very clear, and in the interest of justice, this court has ample power to interfere in the orders of the trial court, which are not according to the principles of natural justice.5. the next argument of the counsel for non-petitioner no. 2 that the case has been pending for service on the accused persons since long, is not the fault of the petitioner. if the court is not able to get the service done on the accused persons, the accused who has been served, is not to be blamed. more over, it was the duty of the complainant also to have got the service done on the accused persons. two years have passed and the accused persons have not been served, shows that the complainant himself is not keen to proceed with the case, and his intention is only to harass the accused persons by filing a complaint; therefore, the argument of the counsel for the complainant, has no substance.6. the_petition is, therefore, accepted. the order of the trial court dated 9th aug. 1989, is set aside, and, personal attendance of the petitioner in the court is exempted, and she is permitted to be represented by her counsel.