IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3015 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CC.177/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- MUHAMMED KABEER,BASHEER MANZIL, ANAPPARA,KULASEKHARAPATHIL, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH SRI.ROY THOMAS (PATHANAMTHITTA) RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.3015 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 20th Day of October, 2010 ORDER The complainant in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act is the revision petitioner as he is aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2010 in C.C.No.177/2007 of the Court of Judicial First class Magistrate–I, Pathanamthitta by which the learned Magistrate dismissed his complaint under section 204(4) of Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the accused who is a resident of Thirunelveli Town of Thiruvelveli District in Tamil Nadu is purposefully evading of process from the court and even the non bailable warrant issued from the court could not be executed through the police since he had shifted his residence so as to avoid the service. The learned counsel further submitted that the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and the revision petitioner is earnestly prosecuting the matter, right from 2007 onwards but the accused/respondent deliberately evading from the process issued from the court. It is also CRL.R.P.NO.3015/10 -2- pointed out by the learned counsel that the accused who is the 2nd respondent herein had accepted the notice issued from this court in the address shown in the cause title of the 2nd respondent. Thus according to the learned counsel, there is no laches or negligence on the part of the revision petitioner in taking steps to issue process to the accused. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this case, I am of the opinion that the revision petitioner can be granted one more opportunity, to prosecute the matter and for execution of the warrant against the accused, who had already accepted the notice issued from this court. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is disposed of setting aside the order dated 30.12.2010 in C.C.No.177/2007 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta, and the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 22.11.2010 on which date, the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file and to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the procedure and law. It is open to the revision petitioner to make a request before the trial court to CRL.R.P.NO.3015/10 -3- get executed the non bailable warrant with the assistance of the Kerala Police. The revision petitioner is also directed to furnish the address of the accused which shown in the cause title of this Crl.R.P. for effective service of process from the court below. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. kvm/-