IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 876 of 2011(D) ------------------------------------------ [ST.NO.96/2008 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT – III, KOLLAM] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------- N.RAMACHANDRAN, KAMPIKKAKAM, DESINGANADU NAGAR, NO.72, ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN. RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SUNILKUMAR, S/O. MUTHUKRISHNAN, C/O. SUMA SANTHIBHAVANAM, ANGADIKKAL HOUSE, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 691 555. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA.C. NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.K.MOHANAN,J -------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.876 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011 ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 28.6.2010 in ST.No.96/2008 the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kollam, by which the complaint filed by the petitioner is dismissed, preferred this revision petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have also perused the order impugned. 3. It appears that the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and though cognizance was taken there is no decision on merit. In the impugned order it is stated that the complainant was absent and no representation and no step was taken to issue process on the accused. From the order it is further seen that the complaint is dated 8.11.2005 and the impugned order is passed on 28.6.2010. The findings of the courts below shows that the complainant has not taken steps to issue process, and hence there is negligence on the part of the complainant. However, as indicated above the cheque in question is an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore, according to me, it is only just and proper to grant one more opportunity to the complainant to prosecute the matter on merit and to have a Crl.R.P.No.876 of 2011 2 decision on merit, but subject to terms. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 28.6.2010 in ST.No.96/2008 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kollam on condition the petitioner paying a cost of Rs.1,000/- in the trial court on or before 27.6.2011 and the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on 27.6.2011, on which date the petitioner/complainant directed to appear before the trial court. On satisfaction of the learned Magistrate that the petitioner deposit the above amount the learned Magistrate directed to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the procedure and law and dispose the same on merit. The amount which will be deposited by the petitioner shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/