Anu vs Benny K.A. on 17 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2393 of 2008()


1. ANU, D/O ANTONY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. BENNY K.A., S/O K.A. ANTONY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :17/07/2008

 O R D E R
                              V. RAMKUMAR, J
                  ======================
                        Crl. M.A. No.6992 of 2008
                                    in
                      Unnumbered Crl. R.P. of 2008

                 =======================
                        Date: 17.07.2008

                                ORDER

This is a petition to condone the delay of 148 days in filing the

revision. Since the order impugned in the revision was passed even

before the appearance of the accused, notice to the 1st

respondent/complainant is dispensed with. Having regard to the

averments in the affidavit in support of this petition, the delay of

148 days in filing the above revision is condoned.

Registry to number the revision petition today itself.

Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

rv

V. RAMKUMAR , J.

==========================
Crl.R.P. No. 2393 of 2008
==========================
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008.

ORDER

The revision petitioner, who is the complainant in C.C. No. 162 of

2003 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam,

which was a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, involving a cheque for Rs.4,20,000/-, challenges the

order dated 26.10.2007 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the

complaint under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C for the absence of the

complainant and also for not taking steps.

2. There might have been some latches on the part of the

revision petitioner in not taking steps promptly. But, she certainly did

not deserve a dismissal of her complaint. Accordingly, the impugned

order is set aside and C.C. No.162 of 2003 shall stand restored to file.

The petitioner shall appear before the court below without any further

notice on 06.08.2008, by which time she shall have taken all

necessary steps for the further progress of the complaint.

Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

rv