Partly allowed

Chelladurai v. Suresh Kumar (Biju)

Kerala HC3 Nov 2017Crl.Rev.Pet/948/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal revision petition seeking restoration of a dismissed complaint. The court set aside the trial court's order under Sec. 204(4) Cr.P.C., conditioning restoration upon the petitioner paying Rs. 1,000 costs to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order under Sec. 204(4) Cr.P.C. set aside; complaint restored subject to payment of Rs. 1,000 costs to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

Chelladurai Vs Suresh Kumar (Biju) — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/12TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 948 of 2017 ()

¶6

ST.NO. 237/2016 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PEERUMEDU.

¶7

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

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT :

¶9

CHELLADURAI, S/O PERUMAL, SELINA HOUSE, KARADIKIZHI KARA, PEERMEDE VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN

¶11

SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SMT.K.S.SMITHA SMT.T.T.SHANIBA SRI.M.V.VIPINDAS SMT.JINU ANTONY

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE :

¶13

1. SURESH KUMAR (BIJU), S/O CHANDRADASAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PRIYADARSINI COLONY, GRAMBY KARA, PEERMADE,PIN-685 531.

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI- 682031.

¶15

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTEY

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶19

==================

¶20

Crl.R.P.No. 948 of 2017

¶21

==================

¶22

Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2017

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The order under challenge in this petition is the one rendered by the trial court (Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Peerumedu), whereby the complaint of the petitioner in S.T.No.237/2016 has been dismissed by virtue of the enabling powers conferred under Sec.204 (4) of the Cr.P.C.

¶25

The revision petition was admitted by this Court on 11.8.2017, on which day, this Court had also directed issuance of notice to R-1 accused. Now it is reported by the Registry that notice has been duly served on R-1 (accused), but there is no appearance for that party.

¶26

Heard Sri.G.Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (complainant) and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State.

¶27

It is stated in the impugned order that the case was initially called in open court on 3.8.2016 and that on that date, the complainant was represented and the complainant was directed to take steps for issuing summons to the accused. But after that, for three postings, there was no representation for the complainant. That again on 20.2.2017, the complainant was represented and the court ordered to take steps for

¶28

Crl.R.P.948/17 - : 2 :-

¶29

issuing summons to the accused and the case was adjourned to 1.4.2017. That no steps were taken till 1.4.2017 and that when the case was called on 1.4.2017, the complainant was directed to take steps for issuing summons as last chance and the case was posted to 20.5.2017, on which day also, there was no representation for the complainant and since no steps were taken for issuing summons, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint as per the impugned order dated 20.5.2017 by placing reliance on the powers conferred under Sec. 204(4) of the Cr.P.C.

¶30

The petitioner candidly admits that there is no justification to find fault with the court below, since the court has been adjourning the case from 18.10.2016 for taking steps. Only after the dismissal of the complaint that the complainant came to know from the complainant's counsel about the impugned order and the petitioner's counsel had informed that his Advocate Clerk had omitted to note the posting dates, consequent to which, steps could not be taken, etc. The petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court as otherwise the efforts of the petitioner to pursue the prosecution which pertains to his hard-earned money, would come to a naught, etc.

¶31

After hearing Sri.G.Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (complainant), this Court is of the view that the prayer of the petitioner in this petition could be considered only on payment of costs. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) to the Kerala State

¶32

Crl.R.P.948/17 - : 3 :-

¶33

Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Ernakulam, attached to this Court and produce receipt evidencing such payment before the trial court. Subject to this condition, the impugned order dated 20.5.2017 is set aside and resultantly, it is ordered that the complaint of the petitioner in S.T.No. 237/2016 will stand restored to the file of the trial court concerned. The complainant and the counsel for the complainant shall appear before the trial court at 11 a.m. on 25.11.2017 and produce receipt evidencing payment of the abovesaid costs. If the costs is paid as directed herein above, then the learned Magistrate shall proceed further with the complaint in accordance with law and in case the petitioner does not produce the receipt evidencing payment of costs as directed above, it is ordered that the benefit of the abovesaid direction will stand automatically vacated and the impugned order dated 20.5.2017 will stand automatically revived.

¶34

With these observations and directions, the aforecaptioned Criminal Revision Petition stands finally disposed of.

¶35

sdk+

¶36

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True Copy///

¶37

P.S. to Judge

Chelladurai v. Suresh Kumar (Biju)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chelladurai v. Suresh Kumar (Biju)

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

G.Saseendran Nair Vs State of Kerala

Ragini Vs the State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

M/S Prolific Contracting Services Vs State of Kerala

Sheeba Anil Vs Mr. M.G.Sebastian

P.I.Nazar Vs State of Kerala