ORDER
R. Basant, J.
1. Against the impugned order by which the learned Magistrate had “closed” the proceedings in a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the complainant, an Inspector of the E.S.I. Corporation, Thrissur, has preferred this revision petition.
2. The proceedings were initiated against the respondent/accused by the complainant/revision petitioner alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Towards E.S.I. contribution due from the respondents-a partnership firm, its managing partner, working partner and the specified principal employer, a cheque was issued. The said cheque when presented for encashment was dishonoured by the bank on the ground that sufficient amount is not available in the account. Thereupon the complainant caused a notice of demand to be issued as insisted by law. There was no useful response. It is in these circumstances that the complainant came to court with this complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
3. Cognizance was taken and proceedings were continued. The accused persons appeared through a Counsel and deposited the entire amount due under the cheque before the court. Thereupon the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the impugned order. The learned Magistrate in the impugned order held as follows:
“Since the entire amount was deposited in court, I am satisfied that no useful purpose will be served in proceeding with the trial further. Hence case is closed. The complainant is allowed to withdraw the amount deposited in court.”
It is this order which is impugned in this Revision Petition by the complainant.
4. When this Revision Petition came up for hearing, there is no representation either for the revision petitioner or the respondent. A Statewide harthal has been called and that obviously appears to be the excuse. I am shocked to note the strange response to the call for harthal by the members of polity. This fatalistic attitude of gloom and helplessness appears to pervade among the polity and all concerned seem to reckon a day of harthal as just another holiday. No amount of attempt by courts will succeed in eliminating this malady from society unless the society frowns upon such malady. It is such fatalistic and irresponsible attitude which encourages, permits and prompts persons to call for such harthals. Easy success of the harthals, which virtually amount to Bandhs, is assured by such fatalistic attitude and response by even the elite in society. In many cases, posted today, I find that there is no representation even for either side. Perhaps courts also, it is expected, would accept the situation and adjourn cases. Not long in the distant past, I remember that those concerned with the court’s functioning used to walk to the courts or stay in the houses of relatives etc. nearby to ensure proper and prompt functioning of the courts on such days where there is a threat of disruption of normal life. We do have to change our attitudes. The enlightened polity has to frown upon such threats to the orderly functioning of the institutions. Otherwise no amount of effort by courts rendering judgments to check bandhs and harthals would be productive. After all in a democracy, it is the will of the people which would be supreme, subject of course to the Constitution. Public opinion will have to be harnessed and asserted to remedy such maladies.
5. The alternative of returning to the chambers fatalistically for want of work does not appeal to me. I am hence choosing to dispose of this Revision Petition by perusing the records even in the absence of assistance from the Counsel.
6. I have no doubt that the impugned order is legally incorrect. Merely because the entire amount due under the cheque has been paid during the pendency of the trial, the prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act does not and cannot automatically come to an end. The revision petitioner is perfectly justified in contending that the complaint has not been disposed of in accordance with law. The disposal is defective. No court should ever resort to such a course.
7. But the question is whether the revisional powers of superintendence and correction are liable to be invoked. Any and every error, impropriety or inadequacy cannot and will not persuade this Court to invoke the revisional powers of superintendence and correction. Unless the conclusion of the Court below is grossly incorrect and improper and such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to invoke the discretionary powers of revision available with this Court. I have no doubt that the disposal is not proper. It is not in accordance with law. Powers under Section 258 Cr. P.C. could not obviously be invoked in this summons case, instituted upon complaint. But, I am satisfied that at this distance of time (the impugned order was passed on 9th December, 1993) it is not necessary to invoke the revisional powers notwithstanding the inadequacy and impropriety of the disposal. The respondents, a partnership firm, the specified nominated principal employer, the managing partner and working partner of the firm do not deserve to be inflicted the trauma of continuance of this prosecution by invocation of the revisional powers.
8. In these circumstances, though fully conscious of the fact that disposal is not wholly proper and correct, I am satisfied that it is not necessary now to invoke the revisional powers. It will be just and proper to dismiss this revision petition.
9. In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed.