P SHINU Vs. P PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments advanced by Mr.E.V.N.Siva, learned counsel representing M/s.N.Vijayakumar, learned counsel on record for the petitioner were heard. The petition and the connected documents filed in the form of typed-set of papers were also perused.

(2.) The present revision has been filed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram, dated 12.11.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.13062 of 2011 in STC No.414 of 2011, on the file of the Trial Court. The petitioner is the sole accused in the above said Criminal case S.T.C.No.414 of 2011, a case instituted on a private complaint by the respondent herein for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram after following the Private Complaint Procedure, issued summons under Section 204 Criminal Procedure Code, to the petitioner herein/accused, on forming an opinion that the case was not one wherein it could be said that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding.

(3.) The petitioner/accused, who received the summons entered appearance and filed a petition praying for dropping all further proceedings in the said complaint based on the ground that the summons was not accompanied by a copy of the complaint. The said petition came to be filed citing Section 258 Criminal Procedure Code, as the provision under which the relief was sought for. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram took it on file as Crl.M.P.No.13062 of 2011 in the above said S.T.C Number and heard the arguments advanced on both sides, after affording an opportunity to the respondent/complainant to file a counter affidavit. Upon such hearing, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram came to the conclusion that the further proceedings in a case instituted in a private complaint in which summons have been issued cannot be dropped on the technical ground of not serving a copy of the complaint along with the summons served on the accused and that the omission to serve a copy of the complaint would only amount to a curable irregularity, not vitiating the proceedings. Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate chose to dismiss the petition by the impugned order, dated 12.11.2011. Aggrieved by and challenging the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present Criminal Revision Case.