IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 992 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.786/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- AMEEN, S/O.ABOOBECKER, ERUKKUVILA VEEDU, RATHICKAL DESOM, VETTUR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. NISA, D/O.KHALELULLA, PUTHIYAVILA VEEDU, THAZHE VETTUR DESOM, VETTUR VILLAGE. 3. NISAMUDEEN, S/O.KHALEELULLA, PUTHIYAVILA VEEDU, THAZHE VETTUR DESOM, VETTUR VILLAGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR SRI.P.K.SAJEEV THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.992 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10 th day of April, 2008 ORDER Petitioner, who is the complainant in CMP No.786/2004 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Varkala, which was a prosecution under Section 420 IPC, challenges Annexure 1 order dated 14.12.05 passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint for the continued non appearance of the petitioner/complainant. 2. This Court called for a report of the trial court. As per letter dated 7.4.08, the learned Magistrate has submitted the following facts:- CMP No.786/2004 was a private complaint filed by the petitioner herein against one Niza and Nizamudeen alleging offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 IPC. The complaint was filed on 15.4.04. The sworn statement of the complainant was recorded on 17.7.04. Thereafter the Varkala Branch Manager of the Federal Bank was summoned. He produced the certified copy of the account opening form in the name of Nizamudeen, Crl.R.P.No.992 of 2008 2 the 2nd accused and was marked as Ext.C1 on 10.2.05. The case was thereafter posted for further evidence to various dates on which the complainant was absent and there was no representation. Hence the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on 14.12.05 for non appearance of the complainant. 3. The dismissal of the complaint for the non appearance of the complaint does not appear to be justified. Even going by the report of the Magistrate there was sufficient material before him to take cognizance of the offences. According to the revision petitioner/complainant it was A1 who issued the cheque of which A2 is the account holder. The cheque amount is for Rs.80,000/-. It is true that there has been some laches on the part of the petitioner. But he certainly does not deserve a dismissal of the complaint. 4. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and CMP No.786/004 shall stand restored to file. The Magistrate shall, in the absence any circumstances Crl.R.P.No.992 of 2008 3 precluding him from taking cognizance of the offences, take the case on file and assign a C.C.No., after taking cognizance of the offences and shall issue process to the accused and proceed according to law. The petitioner shall appear before the court below without any further notice on 29.4.08. This Crl.R.P is disposed of as above.. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj