Allowed

V.U.Raju v. Benny Varghese

Kerala HC17 Sept 2008CRL.A/1096/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal by the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court set aside the impugned order dismissing the complaint and directed the Magistrate to dispose of the matter afresh, noting that the dismissal was more due to the non-production of the original cheque than the complainant's absence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside, and the complainant was granted a further opportunity to prosecute the complaint.

V.U.Raju Vs Benny Varghese — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1096 of 2007()

¶6

-----------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.359/2007 Dated 08/06/2007 CC.2251/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA

¶7

APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT

¶8

¶9

V.U.RAJU, S/O. ULAHANNAN,

¶10

VALLITHAZHATHU HOUSE, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED

BENNY VARGHESE, PAINGAMATTATHIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

R. BASANT, J.

Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is preferred by the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the dismissal of his complaint invoking the powers under Section 256 Cr.P.C. The impugned order reads as follows:

¶24

“Complainant absent. Accused present. Original cheque not filed, inspite of repeated request. Complaint is dismissed u/s.256(1) Cr.P.C.”

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant

¶26

submits that the dismissal really was not for the reason of the absence of the complainant, but for the reason that the original cheque was not produced. It is the specific case of the complainant that the original cheque is lost. There is controversy about the circumstances under which the original cheque is lost. But the complainant does not want to embark on that controversy

¶27

now. According to the complainant the original of the cheque is not presently traceable, but photocopy of the cheque is already

¶28

¶29

Crl.A.No. 1096 of 2006

¶30

available. The appellant/complainant shall seek permission to adduce secondary evidence. That course has been approved in the decision in Chitaranjan v. Jayarajan (2005 (1) KLT 790). In these circumstances dismissal of the complaint for the apparent reason that the original cheque has not been produced on a date when the complainant happened to be absent is not justified, submits the learned counsel.

¶31

The respondent has been served. He has not entered appearance.

¶32

I find merit in the contention of the counsel for the appellant. It is evident that the dismissal was more for the reason that the original cheque had not been produced than for the reason that the complainant was absent. The case was not posted for any steps, for which the presence of the complainant was absolutely essential. Though the absence of the complainant is a sufficient reason to dismiss the complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C., such power to dismiss the complaint is not to be invoked mechanically without application of mind. It is time and again repeated that unless the absence of the

¶33

¶34

Crl.A.No. 1096 of 2006

¶35

complainant on a day where physical presence of the complainant is necessary for further progress of the case, the courts will not be justified in resorting to the powers under Section 256 Cr.P.C. to bring about premature termination of the prosecution. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the impugned order warrants interference. The complainant deserves to be granted a further opportunity to prosecute his complaint.

¶36

In the result:

¶37

a) This appeal is allowed.

¶38

b) The impugned order is set aside.

¶39

c) The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the complaint

¶40

afresh in accordance with law.

¶41

The appellant shall appear before the learned Magistrate on

¶42

13.10.2008 to continue the proceedings.

¶43

(R. BASANT) Judge

¶44

¶45

Crl.A.No. 1096 of 2006

¶46

V.U.Raju v. Benny Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.U.Raju v. Benny Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Haneefa Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Joseph Vs Sree Ram Investments Ltd. and Another

Sai Mohan Vs State of Kerala and Another

N.P.R.Finance Ltd. Vs Bindhu K.S.

M/S.Sree Gokulam Chits & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs Prabhakaran Pillai & Another

M/S.Ayyappa Roller Mills Ltd. Vs State of Kerala & Another