Allowed

Rubco Huat Woods (P) Ltd. v. Indranil Deb, the Proprietor

Kerala HC8 Jul 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/1793/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal revision petition against an order dismissing a private complaint under Section 204 CrPC. The dismissal resulted from the non-execution of a non-bailable warrant against accused in Guwahati. The court accepted that the non-execution was due to location, not petitioner disinterest, and remanded the case.

What did the court decide?

The order under challenge is set aside; the case is remitted to the court below to proceed in accordance with law.

Rubco Huat Woods (P) Ltd. Vs Indranil Deb, the Proprietor — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1793 of 2009()

¶6

-----------------------------ST.3886/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT:

¶8

---------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

RUBCO HUAT WOODS (P) LTD., KVR TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR, MAHATMA MANDIR JUNCTION, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR -2, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MANOJ KUMAR K.V., S/O.K.V.BALAN, FORMERLY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY, CYRIL SHIBU.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND THE STATE:

¶12

---------------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

1. INDRANIL DEB, THE PROPRIETOR, MS/. DEB ENTERPRISES, DEB BUILDING, HEM BARUDA ROAD, KAMARPATTY, GUWAHATY – 781 001.

¶14

2. M/S. DEB ENTERPRISES, DEB BUILDING, HEM BARUDA ROAD, KAMARPATTY, GUWAHATY – 781 001.

¶15

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

¶16

R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. HRITHWIK

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Kss

¶19

THOMAS P JOSEPH, J

¶20

Crl.R.P.No.1793 of 2009

¶21

Dated this 08^th day of July 2009

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor who appeared for respondent No.3. Notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is dispensed with since the order under challenge is one dismissing a private complaint under Sec.204 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”).

¶24

Petitioner, a private limited company preferred a complaint against respondent Nos.1 and 2 for offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Summons and warrants issued against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not bear fruit. Learned magistrate again ordered warrant against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the warrant was handed over to the petitioner for execution. That warrant also could not be executed. Learned magistrate observed that non execution of warrant indicated that petitioner is not interested in proceeding with the matter and dismissed the complaint under Sec.204 of the Code. Learned counsel submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are stationed at Guwahati and hence the non-bailable warrant could not be executed. I

¶25

Crl.R.P.No.1793 of 2009

¶26

¶27

am inclined to accept the explanation. I do not find any willful default on the part of the petitioner to indicate disinterestedness in proceeding with the matter.

¶28

Resultantly this revision is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside and the case is remitted to the court below to proceed with in accordance with the law and procedure. Petitioner shall appear in the court below on 20-08-09 and take necessary steps as may be ordered.

¶29

THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶30

Sbna/

Rubco Huat Woods (P) Ltd. v. Indranil Deb, the Proprietor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubco Huat Woods (P) Ltd. v. Indranil Deb, the Proprietor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.a.Cheriyan Vs M/S.Asian Investments

M.Krishnankutty Vs a.Balan Nair and Another

Ramlath Vs Nasar & Ors.

K.a.Cheriyan Vs M/S.Asian Investments

Anitha Vs Kunjankutty

Aravindakshan Vs State of Kerala