IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 187 of 2004() ------------------------ ST.187/2001 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ NEELAKANDON UNNI, PROPRIETOR UNNIS BRAHMINS CURRY POWDER, MANGALATHU MADOM, MADAKKATHANAM P.O., VAZHAKKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. P.A. ARUMUGHAM, PUTHIYEDATHU HOUSE, AREEKODU P.O, SOUTH PATHALAM, MALAPPURAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C.M. KAMMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.N0.187 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, 29th May, 2008. ORDER The petitioner is the complainant in S.T.No.187 of 2001 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha. 2nd respondent is the accused. The complaint was dismissed under section 204 (4) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.13/2003 before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha and the same was dismissed by order dated 2-8-2003. It is the above orders of the courts below are challenged in this Crl M.C. 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served on the 2nd respondent, there is no representation for him. 3. S.T.No.187/2001 was instituted upon a private complaint filed by the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case of the complainant is that the accused purchased goods from him and towards payment of the same, the accused issued a cheque for Rs.15,000/- and when the cheque was presented for CRMC 187/04 2 encashment, the same was returned for want of sufficient funds to honour the same. After issuing notice, the complaint was filed. After the recording of the sworn statement of the complainant, cognizance was taken and issued summons to the accused to appear before the court on 3-1-2001. The accused did not appear even after receiving the summons. Hence it was ordered on 21-12-2002 to issue non bailable warrant against the accused through Superintendent of police, Malappuram. The petitioner/complainant did not take any steps to comply with the order dated 21-12-2002. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed under section 204(4) Cr.P.C. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner/complainant filed Crl.R.P.No.13/2003 before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. The Sessions Court, after a detailed perusal of the order of the trial court has dismissed the revision. The petitioner challenged the above orders of the courts below. 5. I have perused the orders of the courts below and also heard the counsel for the petitioner CRMC 187/04 3 6. What is borne out from the order of the Sessions Court is that the Magistrate on 21-12-2002 ordered issue of non bailable warrant to the accused through the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram and called for return of the warrant to 14- 4-2003. As 14-4-2003 was a holiday, the case was adjourned by notification to 19-5-2003 . The Sessions Court has found that on 19-5-2003, the petitioner/complainant was absent and he applied for exemption as was done on earlier occasions also. It was also found that though exemption was granted, on the Chief Judicial Magistrate finding that the complainant had not taken steps for issue of non bailable warrant as ordered on 21-12-2002 despite lapse of 5 months, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C. Going by the orders of the courts below, it can be seen that the complainant is not at all interested in prosecuting the complaint. The complainant had not only paid the process in spite of 5 months time elapsed from the date of order of issuing non bailable warrant on 21-12-2002, he was persistently absent. On 19-5-2003 also the petitioner/complainant was absent on which date also his exemption was allowed. Thus I find no CRMC 187/04 4 illegality in the orders passed by the courts below, especially, from the above discussion it can be seen that the complainant was not interested in prosecuting the complaint. The courts below concurrently found the negligence of the complainant in prosecuting the complaint and no case is made out to interfere with the orders of the courts below under section 482 Cr.P.C. In the result, there is no merit in the Crl.M.C. and accordingly the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. kvm/- CRMC 187/04 5