M/S. Bell Leasing & Hire Purchase … vs Joshi K.P on 10 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2555 of 2009()


1. M/S. BELL LEASING & HIRE PURCHASE LTD
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JOSHI K.P
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :10/08/2009

 O R D E R
                            THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
                           --------------------------------------
                             Crl.R.P.No.2555 of 2009
                           --------------------------------------
                    Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009.

                                        ORDER

Notice to respondent is dispensed with since the order under

challenge is one dismissing the complaint under Section 204(4) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Heard counsel for petitioner and

Public Prosecutor.

2. Petitioner preferred a complaint against respondent No.1 for

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On

26.5.2009 learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kochi dismissed the

complaint since petitioner was absent, there was no representation and steps

were not taken. It is contended by learned counsel that there was no wilful

failure on the part of petitioner in appearing in that court. According to the

petitioner, complaint was filed and taken on file by learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Ernakulam and then case was suo motu transferred to the court of

learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kochi but without specifying the court to

which it was transferred. In the meantime it was called in the court of learned

Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kochi and dismissed. It is seen from the copy

of proceedings paper produced by the petitioner that the case was taken up on

15.9.2008, 28.1.2009 and then on 26.5.2009 and on all those days petitioner

was absent and there was no representation. However I am not inclined to think

Crl.R.P.2555/2009

2

that there was wilful default on the part of petitioner in appearing in the court.

Hence I am inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to proceed with the

complaint.

Resultantly, this revision is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside

and the matter is remitted to the court below to proceed with the complaint as

provided under law after giving petitioner an opportunity to take steps if any.

Petitioner shall appear in the court below on 9.9.2009.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.

cks