Raju @ Pita Jyothirmayananda ... vs Prasanna Kumari
2021 Latest Caselaw 3975 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

    WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942

                    Crl.Rev.Pet.No.270 OF 2018

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 989/2016 DATED 21-10-2017 OF
     JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY


REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

             RAJU @ PITA JYOTHIRMAYANANDA SWAMIKAL
             60 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, OMKARA SWARUPANANDA MADOM,
             ADINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O.,
             KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

             BY ADV. SMT.MINI GANGADHARAN

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:

      1      PRASANNA KUMARI
             48 YEARS, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
             BHAGAVATHY VILASAM, MUKKLACKAL, NEDUMANGADU,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695043.

      2      STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA,-682031

             SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.270 OF 2018

                             -2-




                        ORDER

The revision petitioner is the complainant in

C.C.No.989/2016 on the files of the court below. The

revision petitioner filed a complaint against the first

respondent herein alleging offence under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court below as per

the order impugned, dismissed the complaint under

Section 204(4) Cr.P.C., against which this criminal

revision petition has been filed.

2. Service is complete. However, there is no

appearance for the first respondent.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

has submitted that the revision petitioner was not

informed by the learned counsel concerned that he Crl.Rev.Pet.No.270 OF 2018

should take steps, and it was only because of that

reason that the revision petitioner could not take steps

as directed by the court below.

5. It appears from the proceedings of the court

below that the revision petitioner had initially taken

steps to issue summons to the accused. Thereafter, the

court below on 15.07.2017 ordered fresh summons by

registered post. The court below also posted the case to

21.10.2017. On 21.10.2017, the revision petitioner was

absent. There was also no representation for the

revision petitioner. The steps were also not taken as

directed by the court below. In the said circumstances,

the court below dismissed the complaint as stated

above.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to

grant one more opportunity to the revision petitioner to Crl.Rev.Pet.No.270 OF 2018

contest the matter on merits. For the said reason, I am

inclined to set aside the order impugned.

In the result, this criminal revision petition stands

allowed, setting aside order dated 21.10.2017

dismissing the complaint under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C.

and the court below is directed to proceed with the

complaint, in accordance with law.

The proceedings of the court below shall stand

relegated to the stage prior to the dismissal of the

complaint on 21.10.2017. The revision petitioner shall

appear before the court below on 10.03.2021 without

further notice.

Sd/-

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

JUDGE Nkr/03.02.2021 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.270 OF 2018

APPENDIX ANNEXURE-A1 COPY OF COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.989/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JFMC, KARUNAGAPPALLY

ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT

ANNEXURE-A3 COPY OF COVERING LETTER RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER INC.P.NO.36/2017 FROM THE KERALA BAR COUNCIL

ANNEXURE-A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.10.2017 IN C.C.NO.989/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JFMC, KARUNAGAPPALLY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT.