IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1775 of 2010() ------------------------------ ST.283/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------- VAISHAK, S/O.LATE SANALKUMAR, R.K.VIHAR, PRAVACHAMBALAM, NEMOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.GOPU RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND ACCUSED -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S.MARIYA AGENCIES, REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR, SAFARULLA, T.C.43/766, KALLATTUMUKKU, MANACAUD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.SRI.VENUGOPAL M.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.1775 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 6.2.2010 in S.T.No.283/07 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Trivandrum, by which a private complaint for the offence punishbable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is dismissed for default u/s.204(4) of Cr.P.C. 2. The present revision petitioner, is the son of one Sanal Kumar, who filed a complaint as he was aggrieved by the dishonour of the cheque for an amount of Rs.10 lakhs, issued by the accused therein. The learned Magistrate took cognizance upon the complaint preferred by the said Sanal Kumar and recorded the sworn statement. Thus while the matter was pending, the said Sanal Kumar - the original complainant, who is the father of the present revision petitioner expired and consequently, when the matter was taken up for consideration there was no representation and as there was default in taking Crl. R.P.No.1775 of 2010 2 steps, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint u/s.204(4) of Cr.P.C. 3. When the above revision petition was filed, this court pointed out that unless obtained special leave, the present revision petitioner can not file this revision petition, challenging the order impugned in this revision petition. Consequently, a leave application was filed by the revision petitioner, which was allowed by this court, as order dated 9.7.2010. 4. It is also pertinent to note that, though cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate upon the complaint, no process was issued to the accused and at the time of passing the impugned order, the process was issued but there was no appearance for the accused. Therefore, I am of the view that notice need not be issued to the accused and this revision petition can be disposed of setting aside the impugned order and granting an opportunity to the revision petitioner, who is the son of the deceased-complainant, to continue the prosecution of the private complaint, wherein the cheque in question covers an Crl. R.P.No.1775 of 2010 3 amount of Rs.10 lakhs. In the result, this revision petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 6.2.2010 in S.T.No.283/07 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Trivandrum and accordingly the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 30.8.2010, on which date the Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file and permit the revision petitioner to prosecute the complaint and thereafter to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the procedure and law and dispose of the same on merit. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/