IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2290 of 2009() ------------------------------ CC.105/2007 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------- P.G.RAPHAEL,AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.THE LATE P.G.GEORGE,POLAKKATTU HOUSE, EDAPPALLY NORTH,KUNNUMPURAM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND STATE: -------------------------------------------- 1. P.RAMANA RAO,PARAPPURATH HOUSE, MUTTAR, VATTELKKUNNAM,EDAPPALLY NORTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 2290 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23th day of July 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with since the order impugned is one dismissing the complaint under sec.204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner preferred a private complaint against respondent No.1 for offence punishable under sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for alleged dishonour of a cheque for Rs.95000/-. Complaint was filed as early as in 2007. It would appear that inspite of repeated steps presence of respondent No.1 could not be procured. On 23-12-08 complaint was dismissed under Sec.204(4) of the Code since process fee was not deposited. Learned counsel submits that process fee was remitted on 13-10-08. At any rate petitioner may be given an opportunity to take necessary steps. 3. I am not inclined to think that there was any willful default on the part of the petitioner in taking necessary steps. Therefore petitioner has to be given an opportunity to prosecute the complaint. Resultantly this revision is allowed, order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for disposal in accordance with lawafter giving petitioner another opportunity Crl.R.P.No.2290 of 2009 2 to take necessary steps. Petitioner shall appear in the court below on 25-08-09. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/