IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1058 of 2011(B) -------------------------------------------- [CC.NO.705/2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT,CHALAKUDY] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------- SUNDARESAN, AGED 54, S/O. KOOTHATTU KUTTAPPAN, CHIRANGARA DESOM, KORATTY, KIZHAKKUMMURY VILLAGE. PIN-680 308. BY ADVS. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED, SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN, SMT.BHAMA G. NAIR, SRI.V.K.MEETHIANKUNJU, SRI.N.M.SIYAD. RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 46, S/O. MURIYADAN AYYAPPAN, KORATTY DESOM, MURINGOOR, THEKKUMMURY VILLAGE. PIN-680 308. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PIN-682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA.C.NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.K.MOHANAN,J ----------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1058 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011 ORDER The complainant in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is the revision petitioner, as he is aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2010 in C.C.No.705/2009 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy by which the said complaint was dismissed by the learned Magistrate under Section 204 (4) of Cr.P.C. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, when notice to the accused issued as per the proviso of Section 138 of the NI Act, in the address shown in the complaint, the same was accepted by the accused and subsequently, summons was also issued in the very same address. But the summons was returned stating that the addressee is not residing in the same address. According to the learned counsel there is no meaning to repeating the Crl.R.P.No.1058 of 2011 2 summons on the accused if he is not interested to appear before the trial court. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the order impugned. From the materials available on record it appears that the cheque in question is covered an amount of Rs.75,000/-. If once the summons sent in the proper address and if there is failure on the part of the accused in appearing for the court then it is for the court to take appropriate steps in accordance with the procedure. In the present case, the summons already sent to the accused was returned with the endorsement in addressee is not residing in the address. If that be so, it is for the petitioner to furnish the correct address in case of any change of address or to take appropriate steps to serve summons/warrant on the accused as the case may be. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted one more opportunity to prosecute the complaint on merits. Crl.R.P.No.1058 of 2011 3 In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 16.11.2010 in C.C.No.705/2009 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy and the complainant is directed to appear before the trial court on 25-06-2011 on which date the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file and to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the procedure and law and dispose the same on merits. It goes without saying that the trial as well as the complaint are free to resort appropriate procedural steps to secure the presence of the accused as per the rules and procedure. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/