KATHREENA versus JOSE

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

KATHREENA v. JOSE - Crl Rev Pet No. 2628 of 2006(C) [2006] RD-KL 646 (31 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 2628 of 2006(C)

1. KATHREENA, W/O.LATE THOMAS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. JOSE, AGED 50 YEARS, INCHIYANICKAL HOUSE
... Respondent

2. PRADEEP, S/O.JOSE, INCHIYANICKAL HOUSE,

3. PRINCE, S/O. JOSE,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.KURIAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :31/08/2006

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 2628 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 31st day of August, 2006

O R D E R

This revision petition is directed against an order dismissing a complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and Sections 420 and 120B r/w. 34 I.P.C.

2. The respondent has been served. There is no representation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was posted to 21.4.2006 for settlement of the dispute between the parties. Settlement was not reached. On that day, the petitioner/complainant could not appear on account of her illness. An application was filed. Thereafter the case was posted to 26.4.06 for evidence. On that day the petitioner, a woman aged 70 years, had appeared through counsel and had filed an application, copy of which is Annex.A, to condone her absence. On that day even the accused were not present, it is submitted. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order produced  Crl.R.P.No. 2628 of 2006 2 as Annex.B proceeded to dismiss the complaint. The impugned order reads as follows: "Complainant absent. Complaint is dismissed."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was diligent in prosecuting her complaint all along and her absence on 26.4.06 was on account of reasons beyond her control. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that a lenient view can be taken and the petitioner can be granted a further opportunity to prosecute her complaint.

4. In the result:

(a) This revision petition is allowed.

(b) The impugned order is set aside. ) The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the complaint afresh in accordance with law.

5. The parties shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 25.9.2006 to continue the proceedings.  Crl.R.P.No. 2628 of 2006 3 (R. BASANT) Judge tm 

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

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.