JUDGMENT Vinod Shanker Dave, J.
1. It is strange that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has ordered the issuance of non-bailable warrant against a lady, when a Lawyer was already present on her behalf and had moved an application for exemption from attendance. It was open to the learned Magistrate to have directed the counsel to keep the parties present, after rejecting the application for exemption. But the issuance of warrant of arrest was wholly uncalled for and is an abuse of authority of law, merely because some endorsement has been given by the police on bailable warrants. Such a step should not have been taken. It should have been taken note of fact that she did appear in court through her counsel and moved an application that shows the anxiety of the party to submit to the jurisdiction of the court. Extreme step of issuing warrant of arrest in case under Section 107 Cr. PC should be taken with due care and with restraint and in exceptional circumstances. I, therefore, quash the order to the extent of issuing warrant of arrest against Sharda. She shall be permitted to appear in the court through her counsel so long as her presence is not found to be absolutely essential for which first the direction will be given to the counsel through whom her presence is exempted.
2. The petition is disposed of as indicated above.