Dismissed

Yohannan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Sept 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/2507/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order dismissing a cheque-dishonour complaint. It held that the petitioner's failure to produce the trial order sheet after 11 years and to issue an arrest warrant constituted willful latches and negligence, justifying the Trial Court's decision.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed as meritless; the impugned order was not interfered with.

Yohannan Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 23TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 2507 OF 2011

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 94/2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

YOHANNAN, AGED 69 YEARS
S/O.UMMAN MATHAI,PUTHUPPURACKAL VEEDU,
CHIRAKADAVAM MURI,KAYAMKULAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR
SMT.A.SALINI LAL

¶10

RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:

¶11

1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM

¶12

2G.BINU,PALLIPARAMBIL VEEDU
PERINGILPURAM PO,ENNAKKAD VILLAGE,PIN 689 624.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SR PP SMT SEETHA S

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.R.P NO. 2507 OF 2011 2

¶17

Dated this the 14^th day of September, 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The revision petition calls in question the order dated

¶20

3.9.2011 passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam (Trial Court), dismissing a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (in short N.I. Act) under Section 204 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C), for not taking steps.

¶21

The relevant facts for the determination of the revision petition are that: the revision petitioner had filed the above complaint against the second respondent before the above said Court for the said offence on the allegation that, on 2.6.2009, the second respondent had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and issued a cheque dated 25.9.2009. The

¶22

cheque on presentation to the bank for collection got dishonoured for 'insufficient funds'. As the second respondent failed to repay the amount despite receipt of notice, he committed the offence. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the second respondent. The second respondent appeared through a

¶23

Crl.R.P NO. 2507 OF 2011 3

¶24

counsel on 15.5.2010. The complaint was adjourned to 28.8.2010 and then to 11.10.2010 by way of notification. On 20.10.2010, the learned Magistrate issued warrant to the second respondent, since he failed to get himself enlarged on bail. On 5.2.2011, the case was posted for taking steps to issue warrant to the second respondent. Again, the case was adjourned to 5.3.2011. Subsequently, by notification, the case was adjourned to 10.5.2011, on which date, the revision petitioner was absent, but was represented by his counsel. Then, the case was adjourned to 27.8.2011 and again adjourned to 3.9.2011. On the said date, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order, dismissing the complaint on the ground that the revision petitioner had not taken steps to issue the warrant to the second respondent. The impugned order is illegal, improper and irregular. Hence, the revision petition.

¶25

Heard; Sri. R.Sunil Kumar appearing for the revision petitioner, on admission.

¶26

Even though this revision petition was filed as early as on 20.10.2011, this Court has not admitted the same. In fact

¶27

Crl.R.P NO. 2507 OF 2011 4

¶28

on the said date, this Court had directed the revision petitioner to produce the order sheet in the complaint. Indisputably, the order sheet has not been produced.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that even though he made valid attempts to contact the revision petitioner, his whereabouts are not known. That is why the order sheet has not been produced till date.

¶30

Is there any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order ?

¶31

The sequence of events narrated above shows that the Trial Court had issued a warrant of arrest against the second respondent on 20.10.2010. Even after granting four adjournments, the revision petitioner failed to take any steps to issue the warrant to the second respondent. There is no plausible explanation in the memorandum of criminal revision petition for the said failure. The antecedents of the revision petitioner does not inspire confidence in this Court that the latches was not wilful. To crown the above latches, the revision petitioner has not produced the order sheet of the

¶32

Crl.R.P NO. 2507 OF 2011 5

¶33

Trial Court as directed by this Court as early as on 20.10.2011 i.e., more than 11 years back. Hence, this Court finds that there was willful latches and negligence on the part of the revision petitioner in prosecuting the complaint before the Trial Court. Therefore, I am of the view that the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint because of the failure of the revision petitioner to diligently prosecute the complaint. At this distance of time, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. I hold that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

¶34

The revision petition is meritless and is hence consequently dismissed.

¶35

SD/-

¶36

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶37

rmm14/9/2023

Yohannan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yohannan 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

K.V. Viswanathan Vs T.G. Muraleedhara Panicker

P.a.Mohanan Vs T.S.Nanu and Another

Assainar and Another Vs Sakeena and Another

Rajendra Babu.v. Vs M/S. Sree Gokualam Chits & Another

S.Prashobhini Vs P.K.Kumaran and Another

R.Prakash Vs S.Latha & State