IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2393 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/10/2007 IN ORDER IN CC.162/2003 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:- --------------------------------------------------------------- ANU, D/O ANTONY, NADAVELI VEETTIL, REFINERY ROAD, IRUMBANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, JOJI ANTONY, S/O ANTONY, BUSINESS, NADAVILE VEETTIL, REFINERY ROAD, IRUMBANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: --------------------------------------- 1. BENNY K.A., S/O K.A. ANTONY, KADAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARADU VILLAGE, NETTOOR, COCHIN 682 304. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J ====================== Crl. M.A. No.6992 of 2008 in Unnumbered Crl. R.P. of 2008 ======================= Date: 17.07.2008 ORDER This is a petition to condone the delay of 148 days in filing the revision. Since the order impugned in the revision was passed even before the appearance of the accused, notice to the 1st respondent/complainant is dispensed with. Having regard to the averments in the affidavit in support of this petition, the delay of 148 days in filing the above revision is condoned. Registry to number the revision petition today itself. Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 2393 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008. ORDER The revision petitioner, who is the complainant in C.C. No. 162 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, which was a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, involving a cheque for Rs.4,20,000/-, challenges the order dated 26.10.2007 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C for the absence of the complainant and also for not taking steps. 2. There might have been some latches on the part of the revision petitioner in not taking steps promptly. But, she certainly did not deserve a dismissal of her complaint. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and C.C. No.162 of 2003 shall stand restored to file. The petitioner shall appear before the court below without any further notice on 06.08.2008, by which time she shall have taken all necessary steps for the further progress of the complaint. Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv