IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2955 of 2009 --------------------------------------- CMP.10428/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR .................... PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: SIVADASAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, USHAS, THAZHAM MIDDLE CHERI, CHATHANNOOR DESOM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SMT.P.S.PREETHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: 1. ABDUL LATHEEF, KUDAYATHAMARAM VEEDU, THATTAMALA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SAMEENA, D/O.ABDUL LATHEEF, KUDAYATHAMARAM VEEDU, THATTAMALA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2955 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner filed C.M.P.No.10428/2007 before Munsiff Magistrate Court, Paravur alleging that respondents 1 and 2 committed an offence under Section 415 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code contending that refer report filed was without proper investigation. Under Annexure-I order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner challenged that order before Sessions Court, Kollam. Revision was filed with a petition to condone the delay of 225 days. Under Annexure-II order, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition to condone the delay. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-II order contending that when medical certificate was produced, learned Sessions Judge should have condoned the delay. CRMC 2955/09 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that there was no justification for the Sessions Judge to disbelieve the medical certificate and when the medical certificate shows that petitioner was under the treatment for rheumatic complaints and he was advised to take rest, the delay should have been condoned. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-II order. Annexure-I order, dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure, reveals that even if delay is condoned and the revision is entertained, there is no chance for interfering with Annexure-II order. In the absence of an allegation that at the very inception, there was a dishonest intention on the part of the accused to cheat, an offence under Section 415 is not attracted. At best, the case is only that when the CRMC 2955/09 3 amount earlier borrowed was demanded by the petitioner, a cheque was issued by respondents 1 and 2 with the dishonest intention to cheat. But, when there is no case that petitioner was allegedly induced to part with money, there was dishonest intention to cheat, an offence is not attracted. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order dismissing the petition to condone the delay in filing the revision as even if revision is received on condoning the delay, it can only be dismissed. Hence, petition is dismissed. 7th October, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv