Dr.P.K.Mujeeb Rahman v. Ramesh Ballat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/28TH SRAVANA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1778 of 2005 ( ) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 73/2004 of SPL. COURT FOR TRIAL OF MARADU CASES, KOZHIKODE ------------- REVISION PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT::
------------------------------------------------------------- DR. P.K.MUJEEB RAHMAN, S/O. KUNHIMOIDU, AGED 42 YEARS, THONDAYAD, CALICUT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.K.B.SAJEESH SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.C.S.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED::
------------------------------------------
1. RAMESH BALLAL, S/O. ANANDAMURTHI, AGED 28 YEARS, MAIN ROAD, KOPPA COORGE DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1908-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: STK
P.D. RAJAN, J.
------------------------------- Crl. R. P. No.1778 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2015
ORDER
Revision Petitioner is the complainant in C.C.73/04 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Marad Cases), Kozhikode challenges the order of dismissal in the above case. After filing the above complaint, process was issued to the accused in the address, Coppa Chikmangalore District, Karnataka. Non-bailable warrant was issued against him twice, which was returned stating that the address is not correct. Complainant was directed to assist the court to take summons or warrant by hand and execute it through Police, but he failed to comply the direction, accordingly the above complaint was dismissed by the court below under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
2. In the circumstance, I have verified the order of Judicial First Class Magistrate which reads as follows; "Complainant applied. Rejected. Complainant absent. This is a case in which the accused is stated to be in Koppa of Chickmangalore District. But when NBW and steps under Section 82 and 73 Cr.P.C. were isued, they twice returned stating it is not the correct address. Hence
Crl. R. P. No.1778 of 2005 2 complainant was asked to assist the court to take steps by hand and execute it through correct police station. But in spite of repeated opportunities, the complainant failed to appear. Fore more than one year, the steps could not be executed due to the defect in the address and non co-operation of the complainant. Hence the complaint is dismissed under Section 204 Cr.P.C."
According to Section 204 Cr.P.C., in a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made by him, it is necessary to file a copy of such complaint and warrant or summons shall be accompanied by such copy, where if any process fees or other fees are payable, no process fees shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.
The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was absent and no steps were taken against the first respondent even after specific directions. A close scrutiny of the proceedings of the court below shows that there was latches from the side of the revision petitioner.
Crl. R. P. No.1778 of 2005 3 I find no illegality in the order passed by the trial court. There is no merit in the revision petition and it is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- P.D. RAJAN, STK JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE