Allowed

P.G.Raphael v. P.Ramana Rao

Kerala HC23 Jul 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/2290/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition against an order dismissing a cheque dishonour complaint for non-deposit of process fee. The court found no willful default by the petitioner and remitted the matter to the lower court for disposal after giving the petitioner an opportunity to prosecute.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissing the complaint set aside; matter remitted to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for disposal after giving petitioner another opportunity; petitioner to appear on 25-08-09.

P.G.Raphael Vs P.Ramana Rao — 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

THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2290 of 2009()

¶6

-----------------------------CC.105/2007 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM ....................

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

¶9

P.G.RAPHAEL,AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.THE LATE P.G.GEORGE,POLAKKATTU HOUSE, EDAPPALLY NORTH,KUNNUMPURAM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ

¶11

RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND STATE:

¶12

¶13

P.RAMANA RAO,PARAPPURATH HOUSE, MUTTAR, VATTELKKUNNAM,EDAPPALLY NORTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI JAYAKRISHNAN

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

THOMAS P JOSEPH, J

¶18

---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No. 2290 of 2009

¶19

Dated this 23^th day of July 2009

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with since the order impugned is one dismissing the complaint under sec.204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.2.

¶22

Petitioner preferred a private complaint against respondent No.1 for offence punishable under sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for alleged dishonour of a cheque for Rs.95000/-. Complaint was filed as early as in 2007. It would appear that inspite of repeated steps presence of respondent No.1 could not be procured. On 23-12-08 complaint was dismissed under Sec.204(4) of the Code since process fee was not deposited. Learned counsel submits that process fee was remitted on 13-10-08. At any rate petitioner may be given an opportunity to take necessary steps.

¶23

I am not inclined to think that there was any willful default on the part of the petitioner in taking necessary steps. Therefore petitioner has to be given an opportunity to prosecute the complaint.

¶24

Resultantly this revision is allowed, order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for disposal in accordance with lawafter giving petitioner another opportunity

¶25

Crl.R.P.No.2290 of 2009 2

¶26

to take necessary steps. Petitioner shall appear in the court below on

¶27

25-08-09.

¶28

THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶29

Sbna/

P.G.Raphael v. P.Ramana Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.G.Raphael v. P.Ramana Rao

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

Vs

Vattaparambil Hameed Vs State of Kerala and Another

P.a.Mukthar Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Babu Vs George Mathew

Kunhimoideen Vs State of Kerala

Haridasan Vs Beena and Another