IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1137 of 2001 (C) -------------------------------------- ST.463/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ K.R.SURESH KUMAR, S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, KALLADA HOUSE, THANNISSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY RESPONDENT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------- P.R.VINCENT, S/O RAPPAI, PANJIKKARAN HOUSE, ILLIKKAD, KATTOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Crl. R. P. No.1137 of 2001 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009 ORDER Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite intimation given in writing on two occasions, the petitioner has not turned up and that he has no instruction from the petitioner and therefore, he is unable to cure the defects. 2. Perused the records. It is seen that the petitioner was the complainant in S.T.463/98, a complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The proceedings in the case was stopped and the accused was released for the reason that no intimation of dishonour of the cheque was given to the respondent/ accused either direct or constructive and that therefore, no cause of action has arisen for a complaint being filed against the respondent for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Crl. R. P. No.1137 of 2001 -2- The finding of the Magistrate on the above lines cannot be found fault with. It is correct, legal and proper. There is absolutely no merit in this revision. In the circumstances, I dismiss this revision. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-