Siyani v. N.Haridas

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2015/7TH JYAISHTA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 675 of 2003 ( ) -------------------------------- CRL.A 490/2000 of SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CC 851/1997 of J.M.F.C.,VARKALA ....

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT & ACCUSED::

------------------------------------------- SIYANI, PROPRIETOR, S.S.TRADERS, MAITHANAM, VARKALA.

BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS & COMPLAINANT::

-----------------------------------------

1. N.HARIDAS, HARI BHAVAN, MEL VETTOOR, VETTOOR VILLAGE.

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JIBU P.THOMAS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

OKB

K.HARILAL, J.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Crl.R.P. No.675 of 2003 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dated this the 28th day of May, 2015.

O R D E R

Going by the proceedings it is seen that notice issued to the first respondent has not been returned after service. Thereafter no steps had been taken to serve notice to the first respondent. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that he had sent a registered notice calling for the revision petitioner to take steps to complete service against the first respondent in correct address. But he has not turned up so far. So the learned counsel is unable to take fresh steps in the correct address. 2.Having regard to the fact that this revision petition was filed in the year 2003 and no effective steps had been taken to serve notice to the first respondent so far, I find that the revision petitioner is not

Crl.R.P.675/03 :2: interested to prosecute the matter. Consequently, this revision petition will stand dismissed for non prosecution.

Sd/- K. HARILAL, JUDGE okb.