Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S. KAMFIN LEASING AND FINLEASE P. LTD. versus ABDUL HAMEED C.

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S. KAMFIN LEASING AND FINLEASE P. LTD. v. ABDUL HAMEED C. - Crl Rev Pet No. 3204 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 700 (11 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 3204 of 2006()

1. M/S.KAMFIN LEASING AND FINLEASE P.LTD.,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. ABDUL HAMEED C., S/O.MUHAMMED,
... Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

For Petitioner :SRI.E.NARAYANAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :11/09/2006

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 3204 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 11th day of September, 2006

O R D E R

The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Cognizance was taken. The accused did not enter appearance after summons was attempted to be served. There was a direction that a warrant of arrest be issued. The petitioner took all necessary steps. The warrant was written and kept ready. There was a direction to the petitioner to take the warrant from the court and to assist the police. But the petitioner did not take delivery of the warrant or deliver it to the police.

2. When the matter came up on the next day, the court below, taking note of the inadequate interest shown by the petitioner, proceeded to pass the impugned order under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware of the specific direction that he must take delivery of the warrant from the court and deliver it to the police. A Crl.R.P.No. 3204 of 2006 2 lenient view may in any case be taken, the petitioner having taken all the necessary steps under law to avoid an order of dismissal under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C.

4. I find merit in that submission. The failure on the part of the petitioner to take the warrant to the police cannot be equated to contumacious latches under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. which would justify the dismissal of a complaint. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. As the accused had not appeared before the learned Magistrate, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondent.

5. 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. The petitioner shall take all necessary fresh steps and comply with the orders to be passed by the learned Magistrate. He shall appear before the learned Magistrate with a copy of this order, which Crl.R.P.No. 3204 of 2006 3 shall be issued free of cost to the counsel for the petitioner, on 16.10.2006. (R. BASANT) tm Judge


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.