IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.L.P..No. 635 of 2008() -------------------------- ST.514/1994 of ADDL.C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER -------------------- SOUMYA VASUDEVAN, OTTAVEEDU, FROM THIRUVALLOOR MADOM, ULIYAZHATHARA VILLAGE, POTHEN CODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RESALAYYAN, NEELARATHALA PUTHN VEEDU, PARASUVAIKAL, PARASSALA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C.M. KAMMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- CRL.L.P. No.635 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, 29th January 2009. ORDER This petition is filed with a prayer to grant leave, to file appeal against the order dated 18.2.98 in S.T.No.514/94 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, instituted upon a private complaint for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the instance of the present petitioner. 2. From the order sought to be impugned, it can be seen that the date of the alleged offence was on 31.5.94 and the complaint was received on file on 2.8.94. On the date of consideration of the complaint, i.e., on 18.2.98, the complainant was not present. She was also not represented by the Pleader. Thus, the court passed an order acquitting the accused under section 256(1) Cr.P.C. When the present petition for leave was filed, there is a delay and a petition, Crl.M.P. No.2637/98, was filed for condonation of the said delay. In that petition, notice was ordered on 13.7.98. Notice sent from this court was returned stating that the present whereabouts of the party is not known. Crl.l.p. 635/08 -2- Finally, this Court on 27.7.2007 ordered to serve notice on the respondent by way of substituted service putting the same in Desabhimani Daily, Thiruvananthapuram Edition. and there was also a direction that copy of publication shall be produced before this Court within a month from the date of the order. As per the endorsement dated 25.6.2008, it appears that copy of publication was not received in the section. 3. Thus when the matter was taken on 27.6.2008, this Court had noted that service was not complete but delay was condoned. By order dated 9.7.2008, this court directed the petitioner to produce copy of the order sheet/proceedings paper with referecne to the above case, maintained by the Magistrate, from the date of the complaint to the date of the impugned order. It was also ordered that the order sheet shall be produced on or before 29.8.2008. The said order is not complied with so far. When I asked about the non compliance of the said order, the learned counsel submitted that though a registered notice was sent to the petitioner, there was no response. Crl.l.p. 635/08 -3- 4. From the circumstances noted above, it appears that the petitioner/complainant is not interested in prosecuting the matter either before the court below or before this court. Therefore, there is no scope for interference of this Court even if an appeal is entertained. From the cause title of the impugned order, it appears that the case is pertained to the year 1994. The petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the complaint. After approaching this Court, the same laches and negligence continued as evidenced from the facts indicated above. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to make out a case to grand special leave. Hence, the same is denied. In the result, there is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. kvm/-