Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XVI: Commencement of Proceedings Before Magistrates
Section 205: Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
When issuing a summons, a Magistrate can for good reason excuse the accused's personal attendance and allow appearance through a pleader, but can require personal attendance at any later stage.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(1) Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader.
(2) 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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 205
-
Mala Choudhary & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Issue arose as to correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellants, seeking quashing of FIR.
-
Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office
(a) Whether the complaint filed u/s.44(1)(b) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 will be governed by sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC; (b) If the accused was not arrested by the ED till the filing of the…
- Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- Dr. S. Jaitley & Anr v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Sunita Palita & Others v. M/S Panchami Stone Quarry
- A.T. Mydeen and Another v. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department
- Vinod Dua v. Union of India & Ors.
- Puneet Dalmia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad
- Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Another v. Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and Others
- Sri Rameshwar Yadav & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
- M/S. Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. v. Kanchan Mehta
- V.C. Chinnappa Goudar v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board & Anr.
- Rajesh Talwar v. C.B.I. & Ors.
- Tgn Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors.
- Manoj Narain Agrawal v. Shashi Agrawal
- Chaman Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
- Smt. Keya Mukherjee v. Magma Leasing Limited & Anr.
- S.V. Muzumdar and Ors. v. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. and Anr.
- J.P. Sharma v. Vinod Kumar Jain