Allowed

Homeshine Hire Purchase Company v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Sept 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/250/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dismissed the complaint for want of representation by the counsel. The court held the non-appearance was not wilful and restored the case. The lower court was directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 30-11-2015 dismissing the complaint set aside; case restored to court below for disposal.

Homeshine Hire Purchase Company Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 14TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 250 of 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 524/2012 of J.M.F.C.-II, MUVATTUPZHA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶8

HOMESHINE HIRE PURCHASE COMPANY KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PINCODE-686 691, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANOOP V.T., S/O.THAMBAN, RESIDING AT VADAKKEKUDI HOUSE, KOTTAPADY PO KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PINCODE-686 691.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI. PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031.

¶13

2 SUBBAYYA

¶14

AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MOSES, CENTRAL DIVISION, ARUVIKKADU ESTATE, MUNNAR (MUNNAR POLICE STATION) PIN-685 612.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

E C BINEESH-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 250 of 2016

¶19

-2-

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No.524 of 2012 on the files of the court below. The revision petitioner filed a complaint against the 2^nd respondent herein before the court below alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the N.I. Act for short”). The said complaint was dismissed by the court below as per order dated 30-11-2015 on the reason that the complainant was not having any representation before the court below on that day, against which this revision petition has been filed.

¶22

Service is complete. However, there is no appearance for the 2nd respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶23

It is stated in the Revision Petition that the

¶24

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 250 of 2016

¶25

evidence in the case was over and the case stood posted for argument. At that point of time, the counsel for the complainant could not appear before the court below. On 30-11-2015, the counsel became unconscious and hence he could not make representation before the court. It is submitted that the non-representation of the Revision Petition on 30-11-2015 was not wilful. Having gone through the relevant inputs, including the fact that the evidence was over, I am of the view that the court below was not justified in dismissing the complaint. There is also no provision to dismiss the complaint as had been done by the court below. Consequently, the order impugned cannot be sustained.

¶26

In the result, this Revision Petition stands

¶27

allowed, and order dated 30-11-2015 passed by the court below dismissing C.C. No. 524 of 2012 stands set aside. C.C. No. 524 of 2012 stands restored to the files of the

¶28

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 250 of 2016

¶29

court below and the court below is directed to dispose of C.C. No. 524 of 2012 in accordance with the law.

¶30

The revision petitioner shall appear before the court

¶31

below on 16-10-2018 without further notice.

¶32

Dated this the 5^th day of September, 2018.

¶33

Sd/-B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶34

ani/

¶35

/true copy/

¶36

P.S. to Judge

Homeshine Hire Purchase Company v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Homeshine Hire Purchase Company v. State of Kerala

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

Qualified Private Medical Practitioners Association (Qpmpa) Vs M/S Cochin Drug House

K.K. Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Saji.C Shekar Vs State of Kerala

Kumari Maya Vs State of Kerala

N. Navaneetha Krishnan Vs the India Cements Ltd.

Jerry Easo Ommen Vs State of Kerala