<p>The Supreme Court Friday decided to consider whether NRIs can file a plea for quashing a criminal case related to a matrimonial dispute through general power of attorney holder.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol issued notice to Madhya Pradesh and others on a petition filed by Prateek Tripathi.</p>.<p>The petitioner, represented by advocate Amit Kumar, contended there were differences of views by different High Courts and there was no statutory bar for the power of attorney holder to file the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.</p>.<p>However, the Madhya Pradesh HC had on September 21, 2022, dismissed his plea.</p>.<p>The plea said the High Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner has to work in the UK for his livelihood and he had been working over there much before his marriage.</p>.<p>"It has also not been appreciated that the petitioner is not absconding or evading process of law, rather he has been responding to the allegations and participating in investigations," his plea said.</p>.<p>Further, the personal appearance of the petitioner was not required before the High Court for the purpose of hearing his quashing petition, it contended.</p>.<p>"The Right to access to justice or to avail legal remedy in the proceedings where personal appearance of the petitioner is not required, ought to have been permitted to file petition u/s 482 CrPC through his family members especially where petitioner is not absconding and he has reasonable inability to be present in India simply for the purpose of filing," it said.</p>.<p>The petitioner also alleged the complainant here has abused the process of law against him and his family members on the basis of "false, fabricated, vague, omnibus and baseless allegations with intent to extort money by harassing and pressurising them".</p>
<p>The Supreme Court Friday decided to consider whether NRIs can file a plea for quashing a criminal case related to a matrimonial dispute through general power of attorney holder.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol issued notice to Madhya Pradesh and others on a petition filed by Prateek Tripathi.</p>.<p>The petitioner, represented by advocate Amit Kumar, contended there were differences of views by different High Courts and there was no statutory bar for the power of attorney holder to file the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.</p>.<p>However, the Madhya Pradesh HC had on September 21, 2022, dismissed his plea.</p>.<p>The plea said the High Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner has to work in the UK for his livelihood and he had been working over there much before his marriage.</p>.<p>"It has also not been appreciated that the petitioner is not absconding or evading process of law, rather he has been responding to the allegations and participating in investigations," his plea said.</p>.<p>Further, the personal appearance of the petitioner was not required before the High Court for the purpose of hearing his quashing petition, it contended.</p>.<p>"The Right to access to justice or to avail legal remedy in the proceedings where personal appearance of the petitioner is not required, ought to have been permitted to file petition u/s 482 CrPC through his family members especially where petitioner is not absconding and he has reasonable inability to be present in India simply for the purpose of filing," it said.</p>.<p>The petitioner also alleged the complainant here has abused the process of law against him and his family members on the basis of "false, fabricated, vague, omnibus and baseless allegations with intent to extort money by harassing and pressurising them".</p>