IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2412 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- ST. NO.163/2008 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLAS-II, OTTAPALAM. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- DILEEP KUMAR, S/O. MADHAVAN, AMAYURPADAM, ERIMAYUR, ALATHUR TALUK. BY ADVS.MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU MR.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE -------------------------------- 1. K. RAMAN, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, R.T.O OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.I.DINESH MENON BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.2412 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009 O R D E R A revisional jurisdiction can be exercised both under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C as well as by using the inherent power of the High Court to correct an order which is mistakenly passed by the court below. The facts of the case would reveal that it is a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and a petition was filed before the learned Magistrate to the effect that the matter has been settled between the parties and they requested for adjourning the case by two months to enable the accused to pay the amount to the complainant. But, unfortunately the court took it as an application under Section 257 of the Cr.,P.C and permitted to withdraw the case and acquitted the accused. It is palpably incorrect. In order to apply Section 257 of the Cr.P.C, when the complainant satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting the withdrawal, the Magistrate shall permit withdrawal and thereupon acquit the accused. Here there is no prayer or any averment in the petition seeking permission of 2 CRL.R.P.NO.2412/09 the court to withdraw the case. So, it was an incorrect order passed by the court below. Therefore, the order passed under Section 257 of the Cr.P.C acquitting the accused on the ground of withdrawal is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the case back to file and dispose of the matter in accordance with law after affording equal opportunities to the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 15.9.2009 and in case the accused does not appear on that day, the complainant can take out summons for getting the presence of the accused before the court. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl 3 CRL.R.P.NO.2412/09