IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 208 of 2008() ----------------------------- ST.884/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (MARAD CASES), KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------- M/S. MAHALASA FINLEASE (P) LTD., 1ST FLOOR, LEELA TOWERS, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 002, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.GIRISHAN, S/O. LATE BHASKARAN, AGED 51 YRS, GREENS, PUTHIYARA, CALICUT-4. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED AND THE STATE ------------------------------------------------ 1. MOHAMMED ALI N.P., NOOR MAHAL, EAST NADAKKAVU, P.O.ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE DIST. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.R.P. No. 208 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner, who is the complainant in S.T. No. 884/2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Marad Cases), Kozhikode for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 involving a cheque for a sum of Rs. 34,798, challenges the order dated 04.11.2006 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. 2. The accused in the case did not respond to the summons or to the warrants. For taking steps under Section 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioner was directed to deposit the batta. The dismissal of the complaint was for the reason that no batta was deposited. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had, in fact, deposited the batta but the same was rejected by the Chief Ministerial Officer of the court holding that it was remitted beyond the time fixed by the Court. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the complaint did not deserve to be CRL. R.P.NO. 208/2008 : 2 : dismissed under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate should have been indulgent enough to give the complainant an opportunity to remit the batta even if he was at fault. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and S.T. No. 884/2005 will stand restored back to file. The petitioner shall appear before the court below on 27.02.2008 by which time he shall have remitted the necessary batta for the further progress of the matter. This Crl. R.P is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. R.P.NO. 208/2008 : 3 :