IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2363 of 2010() ------------------------------ CC.1513/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VI, ERNAKULAM. ............................................................................ REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------- M/S.PENINSULAR CAPITAL MARKET LTD., PRESENTLY ACUMEN CAPITAL MARKET (INDIA) LTD., 3RD FLOOR, S.T.REDDIAR & SONS BUILDING, VEEKSHANAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 035 REPRESENTED BY K.S.ABDUL KARIM (LEGAL OFFICER). BY ADV. SRI.T.P.SAJAN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.A.RAVEENDRAN, KOOVATH HOUSE, SRIGAPURAM, KODUNGALLOOR P.O., PIN-680 664. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY ADV.SRI.VENUGOPAL M.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.2363 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010. O R D E R The complainant in a prosecution for an offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint u/s.204(4) of Cr.P.C. as no steps produced to issue summons to the accused. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, originally the case was filed in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, wherein cognizance was taken and instituted C.C.No.765/06 but subsequently it was transferred to JFCM Court-IV, Ernakulam, the present trial court and there was an omission on the part of the counsel appearing for the complainant in the courts below in noting down the transfer and the posting of the case in the trial court. 3. From the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the materials and the record would Crl. R.P.No.2363 of 2010 2 show that, on the basis of the complaint preferred by the revision petitioner, cognizance was already taken by the previous trial court but due to the laches of the complainant, no step taken to issue summons to the accused. Thus it is clear that after taking cognizance upon a complaint, the complaint has been now dismissed for the default of the complainant, before the appearance of the accused. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that as the accused has not appeared so far, though to certain extent the complainant is responsible for the same, one more opportunity can be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter on merit. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 8.1.2010 in C.C.No.1513/09 of the JFCM- VI, Ernakulam. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 4.9.2010, on which date the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file and to proceed the matter in accordance with law and procedure Crl. R.P.No.2363 of 2010 3 and to dispose the same on merit. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/