IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1585 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRMP.5361/2009 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------- RENJI THOMAS, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.C.T.THOMAS, CHAKKANATTU HOUSE, KURIANNURE P.O., AYROOR VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. ADV T.K.RAMCHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, THANATHETHU HOUSE, KURIANNURE P.O., THIRUVALLA. 2. ANI VARGHESE, THUNDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTTATHODU P.O., MAVELIKKARA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.R. VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.1585 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010. O R D E R Challenging the order dated 20.3.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.5361/09 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, the complainant therein preferred this revision petition. 2. The above complaint is instituted by the accused for the offence punishable u/s.420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 r/w S.34 of Cr.P.C. According to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, though the case was posted for recording the sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses and several opportunities were given for the same, the complainant did not adduce his evidence and not made available to record the sworn statement of himself and his witnesses, thus according to the learned Magistrate, there is no ground for further procedure. Hence the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint u/s.203 of Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, the observation made by the learned Magistrate Crl. R.P.No.1585 of 2010 2 in the impugned order is not fully correct. By producing AnnexureII, the learned counsel submitted that though the complainant was present on previous date, the court suo moto adjourned the recording of the sworn statement. It is also disclosed from AnnexureII that, the complainant was present on 21.12.2009 and on 30.1.2010. It is also relevant to note that, the complainant was absent on 2.1.2010, on 16.1.2010 and on 20.3.2010, the date on which the impugned order passed. AnnexureIII is the copy of the complaint in Crl.M.P.No.5361/09. The learned counsel submitted that, the observation made by the court below in paragraph (3) of the impugned order is not fully correct. From the materials available on record it appears that, the cheque in question covers for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs. From AnnexureII it is also clear that, thought the complainant was present, his sworn statement was not recorded probably due to the inconvenience of the court. It is also relevant to note that on 30.1.2010, the complainant was present and it was adjourned to 27.2.2010 for the sworn statement of the complainant. But on 27.2.2010 there was no sitting and hence Crl. R.P.No.1585 of 2010 3 the case was adjourned to 20.3.2010, on which date the complainant was absent but he was represented and applied to dispense with his presence. It was under the above circumstances, according to the learned counsel, that the learned Magistrate issued the impugned order. 4. As the case was filed on 21.12.2009, wherein serious allegations are made against the accused, it was incumbent upon the complainant to prosecute the matter vigilantly. But there was some failure on the part of the complainant in appearing before the court. But that itself is not a ground to straight away dismiss the complaint u/s.203 of Cr.P.C., on the ground that the complainant has not appear before the court to record his statement. As pointed out earlier, on previous occasions the complainant was present and not for his fault, his sworn statement was not recorded and the case was adjourned. As I am proposed to give an opportunity to the petitioner for prosecuting the complaint, it is improper and absolutely unwarranted to examine the merits or demerits of the finding or observation made by the learned Magistrate in the impugned Crl. R.P.No.1585 of 2010 4 order. Therefore according to me, an opportunity can be given to the complainant to prosecute the complaint on merit but subject to terms. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting aside AnnexureI order and directing the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to restore the complaint on file provided, the complainant depositing a sum of Rs.500/- in the CJM Court, Pathanamthitta, for which the complainant is directed to appear before the Court on 21.6.2010. On his appearance, and on satisfaction that the complainant has deposited the amount as directed above, the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file and to proceed with the same in accordance with procedure and law and dispose of the same on merit. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/