IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1210 of 2002() ------------------------------ CC.347/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- M.H. NAVAB, S/O. MOHAMMED HANEEFA, SHAMNA MANZIL, VALATHUNGAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------- MRS. NAZEEMA MUSTAFA, W/O. MUSTHAFA, VELIYIL VEEDU, PANTHRANDU MURI, THATTAMALA, KOLLAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1210 of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 24th March, 2009 ORDER The revision is filed by the complainant against the dismissal of his complaint under Section 204(4) of the Cr.P.C. The complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I.Act'). As the summons issued to accused was found impracticable to secure his presence, the learned Magistrate ordered for issue of non-bailable warrant. Steps were also ordered to proceed against the accused under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. The complainant was directed to take steps as directed. Despite several opportunities given, steps were not taken as directed and thereupon the complaint was dismissed by the impugned order under Section 204(4) of the Cr.P.C. 2. Notice on revision was given to the respondent. The respondent was served, but he has not entered appearance. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/complainant. Indulgence of the court is sought for to have one more opportunity to proceed with the complaint, after setting aside the impugned order. Though the complaint had been filed nearly a decade ago, I find the delay caused after the presentation of Crl.R.P.No.1210/02 - 2 - the revision challenging the impugned order, as a whole, cannot be attributed to the complainant. True, the dismissal for default arose on account of the lack of diligence, if not negligence, of the complainant. All the same, it appears, he deserves one more opportunity to prosecute the complaint, to have a disposal of the case on merits. So much so, setting aside the impugned order, the learned Magistrate is directed to take back the complaint on file and dispose it in accordance with law. The revision is allowed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE