ORDER
A.K. Parichha, J.
1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the State.
2. Though the matter has been listed for admission, on the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The petitioner is an accused in Tangi P.S. Case No. 49 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 256 of 2002 pending the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Khurda for offences under Sections 341, 324, 294, 506 I.P.C. In the said case learned S.D.J.M., Khurda issued summons to the petitioner-accused. Inspite of service of summon the petitioner failed to appear in the Court on the date fixed, i.e. on 17.12.2004 as a result of which the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda directed issue of N.B.W. for production of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the said order dated 17.12.2004 basically on the ground that summons was never served on him personally and he was not aware of the date fixed by the Court for his appearance.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the summon was served on the uncle of the accused and that uncle never informed the accused about the summons or the date of appearance.
6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate opposes the prayer of the petitioner Indicating that service of summons on an adult male member of the family can be held as sufficient on the accused as per Section 64 of the Cr.P.C. and so the petitioner cannot take the plea that service of summon was not sufficient against him.
7. It appears from the impugned order that the summon was received by the uncle of the petitioner. Section 64 provides that if the person against whom summon has been issued is not found, then the said summon can be served on any adult male member of the family living jointly with the accused. In that view of the matter, service of summon against the petitioner through his uncle cannot be legally faulted. However, taking note of the plea that the petitioner was not informed by his uncle about the date of appearance and that his absence from the Court was not deliberate, I feel that some amount of consideration can be shown to the petitioner.
8. Thus, while rejecting the prayer for quashing the order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda in G.R. Case No. 256 of 2002, I direct that on the petitioner appearing before the learned Magistrate within 15 days from today and praying for bail in the aforesaid case, he may be released on bail with appropriate terms and conditions and may be allowed to participate in the proceeding.
9. With these observations the CRLMC stands disposed of.
10. UCC be granted on proper application.