IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4031 of 2009() ------------------------------ CMP.1230/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:- ------------------------------------------------------- K.C. NAUSHAD, S/O.K.P. MOIDEEN, AGED 40 YEARS, ZUHARAS, NR. TOOL BOOTH, VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR. BY ADV. MR. K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------- 1. K.P.M. ASHRAF, S/O. ABDULLA HAJI, AGED 45 YEARS, ZAHIDA MAHAL, NEAR SALAFI MASJID, THIKKODI POST, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. MR. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 4031 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010. ORDER The revision petitioner who was the complainant in C.M.P. No.1230 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur, challenges the order dated 02.11.2009 passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The complaint was filed for prosecuting the respondent/accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involving a cheque for Rs.2,00,000/-. Since the Magistrate wanted to ascertain as to whether the petitioner had issued the statutory notice within 30 days of dishonour of the cheque, the petitioner was directed to take out summons to the Bank Manager for the purpose of his examination as a witness. The petitioner failed to take steps and that persuaded the Magistrate to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 2. The Magistrate is yet to take cognizance of the Crl.R.P. No. 4031/2009 : 2 : offence. Hence, he could not have dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C which power can be exercised only at the post cognizance stage. Since the complaint was dismissed even before cognizance and even before the issuance of the process to the accused, notice to the respondent/accused is dispensed with. 3. There might have been some latches on the part of the petitioner in not taking steps to summon the bank manager. But, he certainly did not deserve a dismissal of his complaint. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and C.M.P. No. 1230 of 2009 will stand restored to file with a direction to dispose of it in accordance with law after giving the revision petitioner/complainant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. He shall appear before the court below on 25.03.2010 without any further notice. This revision is disposed of as above. Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 4031/2009 : 3 :