IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1859 of 2010() ---------------------------- CMP.515/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- MINI, D/O. RAJAMMA, MULLASSSERIL VEEDU, CHINGOLI MURI, CHINGOLI VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.VENUGOPAL M.R THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------ Crl.R.P.No.1859 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.M.P No.515/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam. In this revision petition, the complainant challenges the order dated 22.5.2010 of the learned Magistrate rejecting the complaint. 2. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate ought not have rejected the complaint. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner made available to me the certified copy of the proceedings of the learned Magistrate, in the above complaint. It appears that, the complainant was present on 28.1.2010 and the case was adjourned to 1.2.2010, for recording the sworn statement and on 1.2.2010 the complainant sought Crl.R.P.No.1859/2010 2 time to produce copy of the judgment of Sub Court and the matter was again adjourned to 2.3.2010 on which date, the complainant was present and she had produced certain documents. This proceeding is recorded, by the learned Magistrate on 2.3.2010, which read as “Complainant present. Complainant is producing certain documents and prayed for time to give the sworn statement, adjourned to 20.3.2010”. Subsequently on 20.3.2010 and 20.4.2010, the complainant was absent but her absence was condoned. It is on 22.5.2010, the impugned order was passed, since the complainant was absent and no application was filed and no sworn statement was recorded. 3. Going by the above proceedings of the learned Magistrate, it appears to me that the complainant was prosecuting the matter vigilantly and appeared on almost all posting dates and on her Crl.R.P.No.1859/2010 3 absence she was represented through her counsel. Therefore, according to me, the learned Magistrate ought not have rejected the complaint straight away. However, there is laches on the part of the complainant to present on the date, of the impugned order and on that date, neither she was present nor she was represented through her counsel. Therefore, according to me, this revision petition can be disposed of giving one more opportunity to the complainant to prosecute the matter, but subject to terms. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 22.5.2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam in C.M.P No.515/2010, on condition, the revision petitioner/complainant depositing a sum of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) in the Court below. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is Crl.R.P.No.1859/2010 4 directed to appear in the trial court on 21.07.2010, on which date the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file and on his satisfaction, the revision petitioner deposit the amount ordered above, proceed further with the complaint in accordance with the procedure and law and dispose of the same on merit. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. ss/. //True Copy// P.A to Judge