IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.L.P..No. 635 of 2008()
1. SOUMYA VASUDEVAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RESALAYYAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :29/01/2009
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
----------------------------------------------
CRL.L.P. No.635 OF 2008
----------------------------------------------
Dated, 29th January 2009.
ORDER
This petition is filed with a prayer to grant leave, to file appeal
against the order dated 18.2.98 in S.T.No.514/94 on the file of the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram,
instituted upon a private complaint for the offence punishable
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the
instance of the present petitioner.
2. From the order sought to be impugned, it can be seen
that the date of the alleged offence was on 31.5.94 and the
complaint was received on file on 2.8.94. On the date of
consideration of the complaint, i.e., on 18.2.98, the complainant
was not present. She was also not represented by the Pleader.
Thus, the court passed an order acquitting the accused under
section 256(1) Cr.P.C. When the present petition for leave was
filed, there is a delay and a petition, Crl.M.P. No.2637/98, was
filed for condonation of the said delay. In that petition, notice was
ordered on 13.7.98. Notice sent from this court was returned
stating that the present whereabouts of the party is not known.
Crl.l.p. 635/08
-2-
Finally, this Court on 27.7.2007 ordered to serve notice on the
respondent by way of substituted service putting the same in
Desabhimani Daily, Thiruvananthapuram Edition. and there was also
a direction that copy of publication shall be produced before this
Court within a month from the date of the order. As per the
endorsement dated 25.6.2008, it appears that copy of publication
was not received in the section.
3. Thus when the matter was taken on 27.6.2008, this Court
had noted that service was not complete but delay was condoned.
By order dated 9.7.2008, this court directed the petitioner to produce
copy of the order sheet/proceedings paper with referecne to the
above case, maintained by the Magistrate, from the date of the
complaint to the date of the impugned order. It was also ordered
that the order sheet shall be produced on or before 29.8.2008. The
said order is not complied with so far. When I asked about the non
compliance of the said order, the learned counsel submitted that
though a registered notice was sent to the petitioner, there was no
response.
Crl.l.p. 635/08
-3-
4. From the circumstances noted above, it appears that the
petitioner/complainant is not interested in prosecuting the matter
either before the court below or before this court. Therefore, there is
no scope for interference of this Court even if an appeal is
entertained. From the cause title of the impugned order, it appears
that the case is pertained to the year 1994. The petitioner was not
interested in prosecuting the complaint. After approaching this
Court, the same laches and negligence continued as evidenced
from the facts indicated above. Therefore, the petitioner has failed
to make out a case to grand special leave. Hence, the same is
denied.
In the result, there is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the
same is dismissed.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
kvm/-