IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2093 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.1237/2008 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- REGHUNANDANAN, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY MENON, MARASSERIL HOUSE, IRUMPANAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.KRISHNANUNNI SRI.P.GIREESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/ACCUSED & STATE --------------------------------------- 1. SHEELA @ SHEEL SHINE, D/O. MOLOTH OMANA, KAKKATTUKARA, THIRUVANIYOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2093 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. A complaint was filed, but the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, had rejected the complaint. The impugned order is a cryptic order, which reads as follows: “Notice u/s. 138(b) of N.I. Act is not seen served on the accused. Hence no cause of action as made out. Complaint rejected.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain why the petitioner is seeking to assail the order by invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and not choosing to file a revision petition to formally challenge the impugned order. The learned counsel submits that rejection of the complaint is not justified and at any rate the complaint could only have been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. If dismissal were Crl.M.C.No. 2093 of 2008 2 to be under Section 203 Cr.P.C. it could only be at post-cognizance stage and must be by a speaking and reasoned order. That has also not been done. It is hence that this Crl.M.C. is filed, it is submitted. 3. I do not venture to make any comment on the contentions raised on merit, which do appear to me to be impressive. But it must be noted that whether the order be one rejecting the complaint at the pre-cognizance stage or one dismissing the complaint at the post- cognizance stage under Section 203 Cr.P.C., the petitioner does have the option to challenge the impugned order by an appropriate revision before the superior court. That having not been done by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot and need not be entertained. 4. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed, but with the observation that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order, whether it is reckoned as an order rejecting the complaint at the pre- cognizance stage or dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Crl.M.C.No. 2093 of 2008 3 Cr.P,.C. at the post-cognizance stage. The impugned order shall forthwith be returned to the counsel for the petitioner. (R. BASANT) Judge tm