Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.S. ARAVINDAKSHAN versus SHYLAJA RAJAN, PANOKY HOUSE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.S. ARAVINDAKSHAN v. SHYLAJA RAJAN, PANOKY HOUSE - Crl Rev Pet No. 2712 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 419 (8 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 2712 of 2006()

1. K.S.ARAVINDAKSHAN, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SHYLAJA RAJAN, PANOKY HOUSE,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

For Petitioner :SRI.E.G.GORDEN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :08/08/2006

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 2712 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 8th day of August, 2006

O R D E R

This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the learned Magistrate invoking the powers under Section 204 Cr.P.C. dismissing a complaint on the ground of failure of the complainant to take steps.

2. To cut a long story short. Cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the complaint filed on 4.5.2004 and the matter was transferred to the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. At long last on 5.12.2005 the court was satisfied that the accused was served. She was absent. Thereupon a non-bailable warrant was directed to be issued. Thereafter the case came up on 3.2.06 and 3.5.2006. But steps for issue of non-bailable warrant were not taken. It is in these circumstances that the learned Magistrate on 3.5.06 passed the impugned order under Section 204 Cr.P.C.

3. The learned counsel submits that the omission to take steps Crl.R.P.No. 2712 of 2006 2 was not wilful and the absence of the petitioner and the counsel on 3.5.06 before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate was absolutely unintentional. A lenient view may be taken and the petitioner may be permitted to prosecute his complaint. The prosecution relates to a cheque for Rs.15,000/- and the complainant had diligently prosecuted his case from 4.5.04 to 3.5.2006. The omission to act properly on 3.5.06 may not cause the petitioner his right to legal remedy, it is prayed.

4. I am satisfied from the submissions made at the Bar and the perusal of the impugned order that a lenient view can be taken and the petitioner can be granted a further opportunity to prosecute his complaint. In coming to this conclusion I take note of the labour which the petitioner had invested during the period from 4.5.04 to 3.5.2006. I take further note of the fact that at this stage of the proceedings the complainant gains no advantage by unnecessary protraction of the proceedings.

5. In the result:

(a) This revision petition is allowed.

(b) The impugned order is set aside. Crl.R.P.No. 2712 of 2006 3 ) The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the complaint afresh in accordance with law.

6. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate with a copy of this order on 11.9.2006. All necessary steps shall also be taken on or before 11.9.06.

7. Issue copy of the order to the learned counsel for the petitioner forthwith for production before the learned Magistrate. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.