Salim v. Kunhimuhammed & Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
In a criminal revision petition against an order dismissing a Section 138 NI Act complaint for laches and non-remission of process fee, the Court held that the complainant did not deserve dismissal. The impugned order was set aside and the complaint restored to the file.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order set aside; complaint S.T. No.1989 of 2008 restored to file.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 63 of 2009()
---------------------------S.T.NO.1989 OF 2008 ON THE FILES OF THE JFCM, TIRUR
REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT
SALEEM, S/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED, KAKKIDI VALLUVAN VALAPPIL HOUSE, PURATHUR AMSOM, TIRUR.
BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN
RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED
- G.V. KUNHIMUHAMMED, DHARUL AMAN, KAIVALLIKKAL, P.O. PURATHUR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a complaint under Section 138 NI Act should be dismissed for laches and failure to remit process fee when the complainant did not deserve dismissal.
Whether the order dismissing the complaint for absence of the complainant and failure to remit process fee should be set aside.
To restore the complaint S.T. No.1989 of 2008 to the file.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Saleem, s/o. Kunhimuhammed
- respondent
State of Kerala, rep. by the Home Secretary through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Coram
V. Ramkumar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court