In another decision of the Allahabad High Court placed into service by the learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Sardar Jaspal Singh Vs. State (Supra), it was observed that in cases of private complaints, Magistrate should not take opposite parties (accused) in custody under Section 309 (2), but, should, in all cases where the parties concerned voluntarily appear, to resort to Section 88 of Cr.P.C and require the parties concerned only to furnish bonds with or without securities, for appearance or future dates and where the opposite party of a complaint case resides at along distance as in this case, the Magistrate should exempt personal attendance of the opposite party of the complaint case and allow them to appear through counsel under Section 205 of Cr.P.C.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the provisions under Sections 87 and 88 of Cr.P.C., and considering the fact that the subject proceedings which are arisen out of a private complaint where the process and the summons has been issued to the accused, I am of the considered opinion that the orders were not violative of any statutory provisions of law and that the judicial pronouncement relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in this case and hence this petition is required to be dismissed.