IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2085 of 2008() ------------------------- CRL.M.P.NO. 1160/07 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, BISHOP JEROME NAGAR, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE M.G.SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, REISIDING LAT AYYAPPA JYOTHI, PKP KAVALA, KUZHIMATHICAD P.O, KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAIJU. S RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED & STATE ---------------------------- 1. MRS.SUNIL KUMARI PILLAI, THADATHIVILA, TNRA-206, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2085 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 O R D E R The short grievance of the petitioner is that a complaint filed by him alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been dismissed by the learned Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The dismissal was consequent to the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay. In these circumstances the petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. I am afraid the petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy of revision to challenge the dismissal under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to be invoked only in exceptional cases in the interests of justice. Such powers are not to be invoked as a matter of course. Notwithstanding the fact that the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. is consequent to the dismissal of the application for condonation of Crl.M.C.No. 2085 of 2008 2 delay, the fact remains that the dismissal is one under Section 203 Cr.P.C and the remedy of revision is available to the petitioner. Without and before seeking invocation of such revisional powers the course adopted by the petitioner to come to this court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not proper. 3. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed, but with the specific observation that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order in revision before appropriate forum. The copy of the impugned order shall forthwith be returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R. BASANT) Judge tm