High Court Kerala High Court

Retnamma vs Chandrasekharan on 19 November, 2007

Kerala High Court
Retnamma vs Chandrasekharan on 19 November, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 2562 of 2007()


1. RETNAMMA, W/O.RAVEENDRAN,POKKATHIL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CHANDRASEKHARAN,U.D.CLERK, OFFICE OF THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :19/11/2007

 O R D E R
                           V. RAMKUMAR, J.

               ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                     Crl. R.P. No. 2562 OF 2007
               ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
             Dated this the 19th day of November, 2007

                                 O R D E R

The revision petitioner, who is the complainant in

C.C.No.1236/02 on the file of JFCM-II(Mobile), Kottayam,

challenges the dismissal of the complaint under section 204

(4) Cr.P.C. consequent on the non-payment of batta for

initiating steps under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against the

accused. The prosecution is one for an offence punishable

under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

and the cheque involved is for a sum of Rs.30,000/-.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

submitted that the accused in the case is a U.D.Clerk

employed in the office of the Superintendent of Police,

Alappuzha and he has been evading service with the aid of

the police personnel. It is true that the case is of the year

2002. But then, the learned Magistrate should not have

visited the petitioner with the penalty of dismissal of the

complaint without giving him a reasonable opportunity of

Crl.R.P.No.2562/07
: 2 :

paying the batta, particularly when the case of the revision

petitioner is that the accused in the case who is influential

with the police is successfully evading service. Since the

impugned order was passed before the accused has entered

appearance, notice to the 1st respondent/accused is

dispensed with in this revision. The impugned order dated

22.2.07 is set aside and C.C.1236/02 will stand restored to

file. The petitioner shall appear before the Magistrate on

14.12.07 without any further notice. By that time, he shall

have paid the necessary batta for initiating steps under

sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.

This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above.

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks