IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1793 of 2009() ------------------------------ ST.3886/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------- RUBCO HUAT WOODS (P) LTD., KVR TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR, MAHATMA MANDIR JUNCTION, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR -2, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MANOJ KUMAR K.V., S/O.K.V.BALAN, FORMERLY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY, CYRIL SHIBU. BY ADV. MR.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND THE STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. INDRANIL DEB, THE PROPRIETOR, MS/. DEB ENTERPRISES, DEB BUILDING, HEM BARUDA ROAD, KAMARPATTY, GUWAHATY – 781 001. 2. M/S. DEB ENTERPRISES, DEB BUILDING, HEM BARUDA ROAD, KAMARPATTY, GUWAHATY – 781 001. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1793 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of July 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor who appeared for respondent No.3. Notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is dispensed with since the order under challenge is one dismissing a private complaint under Sec.204 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Petitioner, a private limited company preferred a complaint against respondent Nos.1 and 2 for offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Summons and warrants issued against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not bear fruit. Learned magistrate again ordered warrant against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the warrant was handed over to the petitioner for execution. That warrant also could not be executed. Learned magistrate observed that non execution of warrant indicated that petitioner is not interested in proceeding with the matter and dismissed the complaint under Sec.204 of the Code. Learned counsel submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are stationed at Guwahati and hence the non-bailable warrant could not be executed. I Crl.R.P.No.1793 of 2009 2 am inclined to accept the explanation. I do not find any willful default on the part of the petitioner to indicate disinterestedness in proceeding with the matter. Resultantly this revision is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside and the case is remitted to the court below to proceed with in accordance with the law and procedure. Petitioner shall appear in the court below on 20-08-09 and take necessary steps as may be ordered. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/