IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1771 of 2009() ------------------------------------ AGAINST ORDER DT 18.11.2008 IN CC.197/2007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -III, KOTTARAKKARA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- M/S. SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE CO. LTD., ALPHONSA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARKET JN,KOTTARAKKARA REP. BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND LEGAL CLERK, S.PRADEEP, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN, MOOLATHARA THOPPIL KANTRAMKANI, MUNDRO ISLAND.P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.K.S.BABU MS.N.SUDHA RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED /STATE ------------------------------------------ 1. MUJEEB REHMAN, KARIAMKAVILA VEEDU, SASTHAMCOTTA.P.O.,KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO.1771 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with since by the order impugned, complaint is dismissed under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner preferred a private complaint against respondent No.1 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). By the impugned order, complaint was dismissed as steps were not taken. Learned counsel submits that several times, petitioner had paid process and summons and unbailable warrants were issued to respondent No.1 but without result. Petitioner was under the impression that no further process is required to be paid and hence the failure to pay process. I do not find reason to think that there was any willful failure or latches on the part of petitioner to pay the process. Hence, I am inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to pay process and prosecute the Crl.R.P.No.1771/09 2 complaint. Resultantly, this revision is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside. The matter is remitted to the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -III, Kottarakkara for disposal as provided under law. Petitioner shall appear in that court on 13.7.2009. Petitioner will get an opportunity to pay the process required. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd Crl.R.P.No.1771/09 3