IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 687 of 2011() ----------------------------- CC.1217/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- SAIFUDEEN, S/O. MOHAMMED HAJI, KATTUPARAMBIL CHAKKARAPADOM DESOM, PERINNANAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.R.P. No.687 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 7th Day of April, 2011 ORDER The complainant in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is the revision petitioner as he is aggrieved by the order dated 22.1.2011 in C.C.No.1217/2009 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur, by which his complaint is dismissed under section 204(4) of Cr.P.C. 2. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and I have perused the order of the learned Magistrate and the other documents produced in this Crl.R.P. 3. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the reasons stated by the learned Magistrate for dismissing the complaint is not sustainable in view of the facts and circumstances involved in the case and the finding is totally against the real facts. The learned counsel further submitted that the cheque in question CRL.R.P No.687/11 -:2:- covers a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- and therefore an opportunity may be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter on merit. To show that the reasons stated by the learned Magistrate are unsustainable, the revision petitioner has produced Annexure-A along with the revision petition and subsequently produced Annexure-B. 4. On hearing the counsel for the petitioner, and on perusal of the documents referred to above, I am of the view that the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate for dismissing the petition under section 204(4) Cr.P.C is factually incorrect and unsustainable. Annexure B would show that on 13.1.2011 itself, the complainant has produced has summons bata by filing a memo dated 13.1.2011. From Annexure A proceedings, it can be seen that, as per the proceedings dated 19.11.2010 the learned Magistrate has already directed the complainant to CRL.R.P No.687/11 -:3:- furnish present address of the accused, within one week and posted the case to 26.11.2010. On 26.11.2010, it is recorded that fresh address furnished and further ordered fresh summons to the accused in the present address so furnished and adjourned the case to 22.1.2011. It is on 22.1.2011, the complaint was dismissed stating that steps had not taken as directed. But Annexure B certified copy of the summons bata memo would show that the complainant has deposited the bata to serve the summons on the accused in his new address on 13.1.2011 itself. It is also relevant to note that the cheque in question covers and amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that , especially, in the light of the fact that cognizance has already been taken by the learned Magistrate, it is only just and proper to direct the learned Magistrate to restore the complaint on file CRL.R.P No.687/11 -:4:- and to proceed with the same in accordance with the procedure and law and to have a disposal on merit. In the result, this Crl.R.P is disposed of setting aside the order dated 22.1.2011 in C.C.No.1217/2009 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur and the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file on 7.5.2011, if there is no sitting on that date on the next working day, on which date the complainant is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the complaint, if the same is otherwise in order, and to dispose of the same on merit in accordance with law and procedure. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.R.P No.687/11 -:5:- kvm/-