A party must be granted reasonable opportunities to pursue a complaint to ensure justice, especially in matters under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

ORDER

Dated this the 15th day of February, 2022 Challenge in this revision is against orders passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur (for short ‘the court below’) in C.M.P. Nos.7192/2019 and 7193/2019. Separate orders have been passed in the above C.M.Ps on 30.10.2019 by the court below. By order passed in C.M.P.No.7192/2019, petition seeking condonation of delay was dismissed and consequently, C.M.P. No.7193/2019 was also dismissed. By virtue of the order passed in C.M.P.No.7193/2019, the complaint was dismissed for want of representation for the petitioner and for failure to take steps. Aggrieved by the above orders the petitioner has approached this Court in the present revision.

2. It is stated in the petition that the complainant filed the complaint to launch a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the N.I.Act’), on 18.09.2019 alongwith an application seeking to condone the delay occurred in filing the same. It was numbered as CMP.7192/2019 and notice was ordered to the respondent. The case was called for the 2nd time on 30.10.2019. On 30.10.2019 though the complainant had entrusted his counsel to file an application seeking to condone his absence and also for time to take steps, the counsel could not, due to some personal inconvenience. Accordingly, the CMP No.7192/2019 seeking condonation of delay was dismissed. Consequently the CMP No. 7193/2019 to launch the prosecution was also dismissed stating, ‘petitioner absent.

No representation, No steps taken.’

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petition and the complaint were coming for the first time after notice was ordered and the complainant is aggrieved by the order dismissing those. According to him his valuable right to prosecute the complaint on merits was denied by the court below by dismissing it.

4. The impugned order is silent about the number of opportunities given. However, the complaint was of the year 2019 and dismissal was also in the year 2019. At the time when it was dismissed, notice was ordered in the petition seeking condonation of delay and therefore, the submission of the learned counsel that it was dismissed at the initial stage itself is found to have basis. The dismissal of the application and the complaint without granting another opportunity for taking steps is undoubtedly an unjustifiable act of the court below. Interest of justice demands that the complainant must be permitted to prosecute his case on merits.

In the result, revision is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the court below on 30.10.2019 in C.M.P No.s 7192/2019 and 7193/2019 are set aside. The court below shall restore C.M.P.Nos.7192/2019 and 7193/2019 back to file and grant the petitioner one more opportunity to take steps for issuance of notice to the respondent. Orders shall be passed in C.M.P.No.7192/2019 within a period of two weeks from the date on which the respondent appears.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE MJL APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 113/2022 PETITIONER ’ S ANNEXURE S:

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED

18.09.2019IN C.M.P.NO.7193/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 138 OF NI ACT.

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONE PETITION

18.09.2019 IN C.M.P.NO.7192 OF 2019 COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PAYYANNUR.

ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED OF THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2019 IN C.M.P.NO.7192/2019 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PAYYANNUR.

ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED

30.10.2019 IN C.M.P.NO.7193/2019 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PAYYANNUR.

RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES: NIL TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE