IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 CRL.A.No. 1353 of 2010() ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.NO.570/2010 DATED 09/06/2010 ST.3886/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ RUBCO HUAT WOODS(P)LTD,KVR TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR,MAHATMA MANDIR JUNCTION,SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR-2,REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MANOJ KUMAR.K.V,S/O.K.V.BALAN,FORMERLY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY, CYRIL SHIBU. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND THE STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. INDANIL DEB, PROPRIETOR, M/S. DEB ENTERPRISES,DEB BUILDING,HEM BARUDA ROAD, KAMARPATTY,GUWAHATY-781 001. 2. M/S. DEB ENTERPRISES,DEB BUILDING, HEM BARUDA ROAD,KAMARPATTY,GUWAHATY-781 001. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. VENUGOPAL M.R. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.A. No. 1353 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 20th Day of July 2010 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 22.3.2010 in STC No.3886/2006, of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kannur which is a case instituted upon the complaint filed by the present appellant, he approached this Court challenging the above order. 2. From the order impugned it is discernible that though warrant was issued against the accused, subsequently on failure of the complainant to take steps to execute the warrant, the complaint was once dismissed under section 204(4) Cr.P.C., which order was subsequently set aside by this court and thereafter, the complaint was restored and proceedings were resumed. From the impugned order it appears that though section 82, 83 steps were ordered, the complainant did not take any step CRL.A.1353/10 -:2:- to execute the order by taking step under section 82- 83 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel also submitted that the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs.2,83,164/-. 3. From the cause title it appears that the accused, two in numbers are from Guwahathy in Assam and, therefore, the service of process would not be so simple or easy and the court below ought to have considered the above factual situation. The complainant is also bound to see that effective steps are taken to serve the process on the accused by resorting the procedures left open. Therefore, according to me, an opportunity can be given to the complainant to prosecute the complaint on merit. In the result, this appeal is disposed of setting aside the order dated 22.3.2010 in STC No.3886/2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate court-I, Kannur. Accordingly, the complainant/appellant is directed to CRL.A.1353/10 -:3:- appear before the trial court on 30th august, 2010 on which date, the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file and to proceed in accordance with the procedure and law and dispose of the same on merit. V.K.MOHANAN JUDGE. kvm/-