K.S.Chandran vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 2 November, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 3914 of 2007()


1. K.S.CHANDRAN, S/O.K.KUNJUSANKARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :02/11/2007

 O R D E R
                            V. RAMKUMAR, J.

                ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                      Crl. R.P. No. 3914 OF 2007
                ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
              Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2007

                                  O R D E R

The revision petitioner is the complainant in a private

complaint filed as CMP No.1232/07 to prosecute the accused

under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in

respect of a cheque involving a sum of Rs.72,500/-. The

complaint was filed on 1.3.2007. After verification of the complaint

on 23.4.07, the complaint was posted to 23.7.07 on which date the

complaint has been dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. for the

reason that the complainant was absent.

2. In as much as the complaint was dismissed behind the

back of the accused and before the issuance of process to the

accused, the accused need not be heard on this revision.

Dismissal of a complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. can only be on

the ground that the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no

sufficient ground for proceeding. [See the decision reported in

Fr.Abraham Vs. Thomas (1989 (1) KLT 85)]. Apart from the fact

that the complaint cannot be dismissed for the non-appearance of

the complainant, it is not known as to what was the power of the

Crl.R.P.No.3914/07
: 2 :

Magistrate for dismissing the complaint for the non-appearance of

the complainant. If there was default on the part of the

complainant in paying the process, he could have been visited

with the penalty of a dismissal under section 204(4) Cr.P.C. That

has not been done obviously because there was no default on the

pat of the complainant in remitting the process fee. The impugned

order dated 23.7.07 dismissing the complaint under section 203

Cr.P.C. is set aside and the complaint shall stand restored to file.

The revision petitioner shall appear before the court below without

any further notice on 29.11.07 and shall be ready for the further

progress of the complaint.

This revision is disposed of as above.

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks