IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 25TH ASWINA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 8366 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2023 IN CC NO.1176 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,ATTINGAL PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

M/S. SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE CO. (P) LTD. REGISTERED OFFICE: SREE GOKULAM TOWERS NO.66, ARCOT ROAD, KODAMBAKKOM, CHENNAI-600024, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MRS. CHANDRA PRABHA.Y., AGED 52, W/O MR. SUDEVAN.B., WORKING AS LEGAL CLERK, SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE CO. (P) LTD., VARKALA BRANCH, GOPAL BUILDING, NO.499, 1ST FLOOR, MAITHANAM, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695141 BY ADV M.DINESH RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

2 SALINI.S.

W/O LALU, KUNNIMEL VEEDU, NALANDA NAGAR: 126, AYATHIL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691021 BY ADV.

C.R.JAYAKUMAR OTHER PRESENT SRI. NOUSHAD.K.A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C. No.8366 of 2024 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2024

ORDER

Petitioner was the complainant in C.C.No.1176/2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal. Petitioner challenges the order dated 14.12.2023 of the said court, dismissing the complaint for non-compliance with a condition for payment of cost within the stipulated time.

2. The proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the trial court arise under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act’). During the pendency of the said proceedings, since the petitioner had not taken steps under Section 204 Cr.P.C, the complaint was initially dismissed. A revision petition was filed as Crl.R.P.No.24/2023 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the dismissal. By order dated 04.10.2023, the Sessions Court allowed the revision on terms and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,500/- to the District Legal Service Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, on or before 13.11.2023. However, the said cost was paid only on 14.12.2023. Noticing that the cost directed by the revisional court was paid only one month later, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. The said order is under challenge.

3. I have heard Sri.M.Dinesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Noushad.K.A, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. On a reading of the impugned order, it is evident that petitioner had paid the cost imposed by the revisional court though belatedly. The complaint was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that since the cost was directed to be paid within a particular time by the Sessions Court, it was not within its powers to extend the said period.

5. Having regard to the circumstance that the complaint arises under Section 138 of the N.I Act and also that petitioner had already paid the cost though belatedly, I am of the view that though dismissal of the complaint was improper, still a lenient view can be adopted. Petitioner was lethargic in complying with the condition imposed by the Sessions Court, but since it had complied with the condition, this petition can be allowed on terms.

6. Hence, the impugned order Annexure-A4 dated 14.12.2023 in C.C.No.1176/2016 is set aside on condition that petitioner pays an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant in the trial court on or before 15.11.2024. It is clarified that in case petitioner fails to pay the said cost, under no circumstances shall any further extension of time be granted. Needless to mention that the bail bond executed by the second respondent shall stand revived and no fresh bail bonds shall be required to be executed.

This criminal miscellaneous case is allowed as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE Jka/17.10.24.

Corrigendu