O C PERIYASAMY Vs. D VENKATESAN ALIAS RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Erode against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After the said complaint being filed, it was posted on 12.05.2010 for recording the sworn statement of the complainant. As the complainant was not present, it was adjourned to 17.05.2010. Even on that day, since the complainant was not present, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Magistrate, the present criminal revision has been preferred before this Court.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant was attending the Court regularly without fail, but he could not appear before the Court on 12.05.2010 and 17.05.2010, as he fell sick. Therefore, the complainant has not filed any application before learned Magistrate. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the complainant must be given a chance to proceed with this case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the learned Magistrate, after receiving the complaint, has no power to dismiss the same without recording the sworn statement of the complainant. Any dismissal of the complaint could be only under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that before dismissing the complaint, the learned Magistrate could have sent any notice to the complainant.

(3.) This Court considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.