S RENGANATHAN Vs. M/S VASANTHAM AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the orders passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tiruppur in Crl.M.P. No. 2273 of 2000 in C.C. No. 320 of 1998, permitting the complainant IO withdraw the prosecution in respect of A -7, who is the second Respondent herein.

(2.) THE circumstances under which the said petition has come to be filed is as follows: The accused in C.C. No. 320 of 1998 are the Authorized Signatories, Managing Director and Directors of Chenimalai Yarns Private Ltd and the cheque, which has been issued by them in respect of their liability to the complainant, on presentation was dishonored and hence after observing all the formalities contemplated under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the prosecution was launched, since the money has not been paid, against all the accused. Though steps have been taken to serve summons on the accused, it was not possible for the complainant to get the summons served on A -7 alone and the matter was pending for a long time for compliance of the same. Therefore, in order to progress with the case further, the complainant had filed a petition before the Magistrate to withdraw the complaint in respect of A -7 alone under Section 257 Code of Criminal Procedure. On consideration of the submissions made, the learned Magistrate has granted permission to withdraw the case against A -7 and consequently, had acquitted him. It is against this order, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) WITH due respect to the learned Counsel, I am unable to accept the said contention. Since, Section 257 Code of Criminal Procedure is clear in its language that in a summons case the complainant is at liberty to withdraw the case on satisfying the Magistrate against any particular accused when there are more than one accused and accordingly, the complainant in the present case has brought to the notice of the Court that the accused, namely A -7 is away from the Country and hence summons could not be served on him and if the case is still kept pending without any progress he would be seriously prejudiced. Therefore, in such circumstances, the learned Magistrate has felt it necessary that A -7 should be dropped and consequently, having accepted the contention of the counsel to be a valid one, has permitted to do so. Hence, in such circumstances, I find that there is no illegality committed by the learned Magistrate in passing such an order. Consequently, this revision is dismissed and the connected Crl.M. Ps are also closed.