Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
C.P.GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
N.S.ANEESH – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 708 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.S.ARUN KUMAR, JUSTINE JACOB, RESMI THOMAS, P.A.VIBIN
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The court emphasizes the right of a complainant to contest a matter on merits, where non-appearance is due to lack of notice regarding case transfer.
Headnote:This revision petition challenges an order dismissing a complaint due to absence of the complainant and lack of service on the accused. The court noted the complainant was unaware of the case transfer leading to the dismissal. The court found merit in re-examining the case given the stakes involved.
Result: the order is set aside, the case restored, with specific directions for the complainant's next steps.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to order based on lack of appearance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court acknowledges merit and grants another chance. (Para 4 , 5) |
ORDER
Under challenge in this revision petition is the order dated 06.02.2017 passed in C.C.No.7 of 2017 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perumbavoor, dismissing the complaint filed by the revision petitioner under Section 204 (4) of Cr.P.C.
2. The impugned order shows that the complaint was thus dismissed by the trial court, since neither the complainant nor his counsel was present and since, no steps were taken to serve the accused.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Even though the first respondent was served, there is no appearance for him.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that it is only because of the fact that the revision petitioner did not come to know about the transfer of the case from JFCM-I to JFCM-II, Perumbavoor, there was no appearance from his part. He also submitted that considering the stakes involved in the case, an opportunity may be granted to the revision petitioner to contest the matter on merits.
5. As stated earlier, on going through the impugned order, it is to be seen that the complaint was dismissed since, neither the complainant nor his counsel was present and also because, no process fee was paid by the complainant. It also shows that the case was originally taken cognizance by JFCM, Muvattupuzha and it was later transferred to JFCM-I, Perumbavoor. It is thereafter, the case was again made over to JFCM-II, Perumbavoor, on the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. It is specifically contended by the the revision petitioner that he has not received any notice regarding the posting of the date, when the case was transferred and it is only later, he came to know about the dismissal of the case. It is to be taken note that the first respondent has not appeared in this revision petition and contested the matter. Hence, considering the submissions made by the revision petitioner and the stakes involved in the matter, I am of the view that another opportunity can be granted to the revision petitioner to contest the matter on merits.
Therefore, this revision petition is allowed as follows;
(i) The order dated 06.02.2017 in C.C.No.7 of
2017, passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perumbavoor is set aside.
(ii) C.C.No.7 of 2017 will stand restored back to the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-
II, Perumbavoor.
(iii) The revision petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 12.01.2026 and take steps within seven days thereafter, to serve the accused.
(iv) In such case, the trial court shall dispose of C.C.No.7 of 2017 as per law.
