IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2044 of 2009 ------------------------------ CC.590/2007 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, Thiruvananthapuram .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------- SUBAIDA BEEVI, BUNDILI VEEDU, T.C 11/06, PLAMOODU, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. HARIHARA IYER GANESAN, T.C 38/302, (T.C 38/3073), VALIYASSALA THERUVU, RESIDENCE NO. 218, ARYASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2044 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 26th day of June 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with. Since the order under challenge is dismissal of a private complaint under Sec.204(4) of the Code of Criminal procedure. Public prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2 2. Petitioner filed a private complaint against respondent No.1 alleging offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On 26-03-08 complaint was dismissed as aforesaid for failure of petitioner to take necessary steps. Learned counsel states that there was no willful default or laches on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel also states that complaint was filed on 23-03-07 and it was taken on file on 26-04-07. Thereafter petitioner was present on all posting days except 23-03-05. The absence on that day was due to the clerk of the advocate mistakenly noting the posting date as 28/03/08. On 28/03/08 petitioner learnt from the office of the court below that complaint was dismissed on Crl.R.P.No.2044 of 2009 2 23-03-08. On hearing learned counsel I am inclined to think that there was no willful default or laches on the part of petitioner. In the circumstances I am inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. Resultantly this revision is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram for disposal in accordance with the law after giving petitioner an opportunity to take necessary steps. Petitioner shall appear in the court below on 31-07-09. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/