IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1932 OF 2009() ----------------------------------------------- ST.290/2006 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------- K. VARKEY VARGHESE, KEECHERIL HOUSE PARIYARAM P.O., MALLAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. ZAKHEER HUSSAIN, PERUMPATTY KATTIL HOUSE CHUNKARA PO. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1932 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with since the order under challenge is under Section 204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure dismissing the complaint for non-payment of process. 2. Petitioner filed a private complaint against respondent No.1 alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Case was taken on file as S.T. No.290 of 2006 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam and then made over to the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kottayam for disposal. Learned magistrate ordered summons to respondent No.1 by registered post and petitioner was directed to pay the process. It is seen that on three consecutive posting dates petitioner was absent and there was no representation and hence complaint was dismissed as per order dated 16.5.2006 which is under challenge in this revision. 3. Learned counsel submitted that there was no wilful delay or laches on the part of the petitioner and that process could not be paid since case was posted on very near dates. It is seen from the order under challenge that summons by registered post was ordered. According to learned counsel process was paid to send summons by CRL. R.P. No.1932 of 2009 -: 2 :- registered post but summons was returned unclaimed. Case was then posted on 12.5.2006, 15.5.2006 and again on 16.5.2006, all within four days. Possibly that is the reason why petitioner failed to appear in court and pay the process fee. 4. I am not inclined to think that non-appearance of petitioner in the court below was wilful. Petitioner has to be given an opportunity to prosecute the complaint. Resultantly, this revision is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below for disposal in accordance with the law. Petitioner will be given an opportunity to take the necessary steps. Petitioner shall appear in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kottayam on 27.7.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv CRL. R.P. No.1932 of 2009 -: 3 :-