IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2955 of 2009()
1. SIVADASAN, S/O.NARAYANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ABDUL LATHEEF, KUDAYATHAMARAM VEEDU,
... Respondent
2. SAMEENA, D/O.ABDUL LATHEEF,
3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :07/10/2009
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2955 of 2009
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioner filed C.M.P.No.10428/2007 before
Munsiff Magistrate Court, Paravur alleging that
respondents 1 and 2 committed an offence under
Section 415 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code contending that refer report filed was without
proper investigation. Under Annexure-I order,
learned Magistrate dismissed the petition under
Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Petitioner challenged that order before Sessions
Court, Kollam. Revision was filed with a petition
to condone the delay of 225 days. Under Annexure-II
order, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the
petition to condone the delay. This petition is
filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash Annexure-II order contending
that when medical certificate was produced, learned
Sessions Judge should have condoned the delay.
CRMC 2955/09 2
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
was heard.
3. Argument of the learned counsel is that
there was no justification for the Sessions Judge
to disbelieve the medical certificate and when the
medical certificate shows that petitioner was under
the treatment for rheumatic complaints and he was
advised to take rest, the delay should have been
condoned.
4. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no
reason to interfere with Annexure-II order.
Annexure-I order, dismissing the complaint under
Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure, reveals
that even if delay is condoned and the revision is
entertained, there is no chance for interfering
with Annexure-II order. In the absence of an
allegation that at the very inception, there was a
dishonest intention on the part of the accused to
cheat, an offence under Section 415 is not
attracted. At best, the case is only that when the
CRMC 2955/09 3
amount earlier borrowed was demanded by the
petitioner, a cheque was issued by respondents 1
and 2 with the dishonest intention to cheat. But,
when there is no case that petitioner was allegedly
induced to part with money, there was dishonest
intention to cheat, an offence is not attracted.
In such circumstances, I find no reason to
interfere with the order dismissing the petition to
condone the delay in filing the revision as even if
revision is received on condoning the delay, it can
only be dismissed. Hence, petition is dismissed.
7th October, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv