IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2489 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ CC.900/2008 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court IV, Kochi) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVN.PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT IN CC. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.IGNATIUS ALVEN, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.LATE PAULO, RESIDING AT KONDURUTHIL HOUSE, ST.ALBERT'S SCHOOL LANE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 035. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT/ACCUSED IN CC. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.A.SINIK, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O.P.ABOOBACKER, PROPRIETOR, BATTERY HOUSE, BANERJI ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KL. V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.2489 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010. O R D E R The complainant in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, as he is aggrieved by the order dated 19.8.2009 in C.C.No.900/08 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kochi, by which the complaint is dismissed u/s.204(4) of Cr.P.C. 'for want of steps'. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, originally the case was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court-Ernakulam, wherein cognizance was taken and subsequently the case was made over to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi and from where it was again made over to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kochi, in which the court dismissed the complaint of the revision petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that when this case was made over, proper notice was not given to the parties concerned and in an identical matter, this court in the decision in Susamma Rajan Vs. Crl. R.P.No.2489 of 2010 2 State of Kerala reported in [2009(1) KLT SN 16 (Case No.15)] has observed the necessity of giving proper notice to all the concerned parties and further directed the Registry to ensure the proceedings. 3. In the present case, the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs.2 lakhs. It is also beyond dispute that on the basis of the complaint filed by the revision petitioner, cognizance was taken u/s.138 of NI Act and the case was made over from the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kochi, after the above proceedings. Thus it can be seen that though cognizance was taken the complaint is disposed of u/s.204(4) of Cr.P.C., without going into the merits of the case. It appears that there was some defects in issuing proper notice regarding the transfer of the case as seen in the decision in 'Susamma Rajan' case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that, it is only just and proper to set aside the order impugned and to give an opportunity to the revision petitioner to prosecute his complaint on merit by giving him adequate Crl. R.P.No.2489 of 2010 3 opportunity. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 19.8.2008 in C.C.No.900/08 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kochi, and accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the said court on 7.10.2010, on which date the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file and to proceed with the same in accordance with the procedure and law and dispose it on merit. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/