IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2489 of 2010()
1. P.IGNATIUS ALVEN, AGED 77 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.A.SINIK, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :07/09/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------
Crl. R.P.No.2489 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010.
O R D E R
The complainant in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, as he is
aggrieved by the order dated 19.8.2009 in C.C.No.900/08 of the
Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kochi, by which the
complaint is dismissed u/s.204(4) of Cr.P.C. ‘for want of steps’.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted
that, originally the case was filed before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court-Ernakulam, wherein cognizance was taken and
subsequently the case was made over to the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Kochi and from where it was again made over
to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kochi, in which the
court dismissed the complaint of the revision petitioner. The
learned counsel submitted that when this case was made over,
proper notice was not given to the parties concerned and in an
identical matter, this court in the decision in Susamma Rajan Vs.
Crl. R.P.No.2489 of 2010
2
State of Kerala reported in [2009(1) KLT SN 16 (Case No.15)]
has observed the necessity of giving proper notice to all the
concerned parties and further directed the Registry to ensure the
proceedings.
3. In the present case, the cheque in question covers an
amount of Rs.2 lakhs. It is also beyond dispute that on the basis
of the complaint filed by the revision petitioner, cognizance was
taken u/s.138 of NI Act and the case was made over from the
Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kochi, after the above
proceedings. Thus it can be seen that though cognizance was
taken the complaint is disposed of u/s.204(4) of Cr.P.C., without
going into the merits of the case. It appears that there was some
defects in issuing proper notice regarding the transfer of the case
as seen in the decision in ‘Susamma Rajan’ case. Having regard
to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the
view that, it is only just and proper to set aside the order
impugned and to give an opportunity to the revision petitioner to
prosecute his complaint on merit by giving him adequate
Crl. R.P.No.2489 of 2010
3
opportunity.
In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting
aside the order dated 19.8.2008 in C.C.No.900/08 of the Court of
Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kochi, and accordingly, the
revision petitioner is directed to appear before the said court on
7.10.2010, on which date the learned Magistrate is directed to
restore the complaint on file and to proceed with the same in
accordance with the procedure and law and dispose it on merit.
Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
V.K.MOHANAN,
Judge.
ami/