IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1356 of 2011(D) -------------------------------------------- [ST.NO.3775/2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KOLENCHERRY DTD. 07/10/2010] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------- MUTHOOT VEHICLES AND ASSET FINANCE LTD. MUTHOOT CHAMBERS, 2ND FLOOR, OPP. SARITHA THEATRE COMPLEX, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN- 682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER-BABY SUJATHA, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.M.R.VALSAN SAISURAJ,THAMARASSERY ROAD,POONITHURA P.O.,TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADVS. SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL PALAMOOTTIL, SRI.A.V.JAMES RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, MADHAVAPPILLY HOUSE, PWD ROAD, NETTOOR P.O., MARADU. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA.C. NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.K.MOHANAN,J --------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1356 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 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 07.01.2010 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery in ST No.3775/2009 by which the said complaint was dismissed by the learned Magistrate under Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel submitted that the cheque in question involves an amount of Rs.9,22,179/- and there was no negligence or laches on the part of the complainant or the counsel in appearing before the courts below. It is submitted that originally, the case was filed before the JFCM-I, Kochi and subsequently, the case was transferred to the present trial court. Under the above circumstances, the counsel who filed the complaint could not reach in the court in time and though the matter was entrusted with another counsel in the court at Kolenchery, failed in noting down the proceedings dated 29.9.2010 of the trial court and under the above circumstances, the complainant was not represented either on 4.10.2010 or on 7.11.2010. Crl.R.P.No.1356 of 2011 2 3. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that as per the proceedings of the learned Magistrate it can be seen that notice was issued to the complainant notifying date of hearing as on 18.1.2010 and though the case was subsequently adjourned on three occasions by notification, neither the complaint nor the counsel followed the order issued by the trial court. It was on 29.9.2010 the court ordered summons by registered post to the accused and adjourned the case to 4.10.2010 for producing the cover. As the cover was not produced and there was no representation the case was again adjourned to 7.10.2010. On that day also neither the complaint nor the counsel was present. It is under the above circumstances, the court dismissed the complaint under Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C. From the above proceedings it can be seen that the procedure adopted by the court below is neither illegal nor irregular or improper. However, it is relevant to note that complaint is covered with a cheque covers an amount of Rs.9,22,179/- and cognizance was has already taken. Therefore, according to me, even though there is negligence on the part of the complainant, one more opportunity can be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter on merit but subject to terms. Crl.R.P.No.1356 of 2011 3 In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 7.10.2010 in ST.No.3775/2009 in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kolenchery on condition the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.1,500/- in the trial court towards cost. Accordingly, the complainant is directed to appear before the trial court on 04.07.2011 on which date learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file and on satisfaction of the learned Magistrate that the petitioner deposit the above amount towards cost the learned Magistrate is further directed to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the procedure and law and dispose the same on merit. The amount which will deposit by the petitioner shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/