R. REGUPATHI, J.—THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVAIYARU, PASSED AN Order IN C.M.P. NO. 639/2006 ON 6.2.2006, RETURNING THE PETITIONER’S COMPLAINT WITHOUT TAKING COGNIZANCE. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THAT, THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE PRESENT CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION. THE IMPUGNED Order HAS BEEN PASSED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:

(a) At the time of re-presentation

of the complaint / additional grounds have been raised.

(b) The statutory notice has been returned as unserved, as door locked for several days and it cannot be construed as constructive notice.

(c) There is contradictory plea taken by the complainant as to why and under what circumstances cheque has been given by accused.

2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO IRREGULARITY IN THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT AND THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE IN DISMISSING THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT AT THE INITIAL STAGE ITSELF IS UNSUSTAINABLE AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER RELIED ON THE Judgment OF THE SUPREME COURT IN V. RAJA KUMARI V. P. SUBBRAMA NAIDU & ANR.1 THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID Judgment IS EXTRACTED BELOW:

“16.The object of notice is to give a chance to th