BRIGHT GLASS TRADERS Vs. T.M.HARDWARES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order under challenge in this revisional proceedings is the one rendered on 12.05.2017 by the trial court concerned (Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur), whereby the complaint of the petitioner in S.T.C.424 of 2016 has been dismissed by virtue of the enabling provisions contained in Sec.204(4) of the Cr.P.C as the petitioner had not taken steps to pay process fee for service of warrant to the accused. The matter in issue is covered fully in favour of the petitioner by the dictum laid down by this Court in the decision in Ayodya Printers Ltd. v. State of Kerala reported in 2015(4) KLT 251 (order dated 22.09.2015 in Cr.R.P.No.1003/2015). Accordingly, notice to respondents 1 to 3 (accused) are dispensed with.

(2.) Heard Sri.K.Rajesh Sukumaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (complainant) and Sri.Saigi Jacob Paletty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R2, State.

(3.) The petitioner herein is the complainant alleging offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein the respondents 1 to 3 have been arrayed as accused therein. It is averred that the complaint was originally filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur on 31.05.2013 and later in tune with the judgment dated 14.08.2014 rendered by the Apex Court in the case in Dasrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2014 (9) SCC 129, the said trial court had returned the complaint to the complainant for representing the same before the proper court. Accordingly, the complaint was re presented on 27.09.2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad district. Thereafter in tune with the amendments made to the provisions contained in the Negotiable Instruments Act by inserting Sec.142(2) and Sec.142A thereof with effect from 15.06.2015, the complaint was again returned to be presented before the proper court and the case was transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur. The case was later called on 16.04.2016 on which day summons was ordered to the accused and case was posted to 1.07.2016. Accordingly, the petitioner had paid Batta on 27.04.2016 for taking out summons on the accused. On 1.07.2016, there was no sitting and the case was notified to 28.11.2016 and on that day the complainant was represented and as the accused was absconding summons was repeated and the case was posted to 13.01.2017.