IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/9TH ASWINA, 1937

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2243 of 2007 ( )

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

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 3603/2005 of J.M.F.C.-I,KOZHIKODE

DATED 06-11-2006

REVISION PETITIONER(S):

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

P.MAMMED, S/O MAMMUNNI,

MANAGING PARTNER, M/S NOOR ENTERPRISES

ENGINEER & CONTRACRORS, 17/158 B, KARUVANTHIRUTHI

FEROKE, KOZHIKODE., (FEROKE POLICE STATION

CALICUT)

BY ADVS.SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ

SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)

RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SHO ELATHOOR

POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE CRIME FIR 178/2005 BY THE

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2. M.V.BAVA, S/O KUNHIBAVA, PROPRIETOR,

M/S M.V.BAVA ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR, MELEVEETTIL

"FAIROOSE", T.S.ROAD, CHALIYAM P.O.

KOZHIKODE., (FEROKE POLICE STATION, CALICUT)

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

ON 01-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE

FOLLOWING:

acd

P.D. RAJAN, J.

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

Crl.R.P.No.2243 of 2007

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

Dated this the 1^st day of October, 2015

ORDER

The revision petitioner, who is the complainant in

C.M.P.No.3603/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode, challenges the order of

dismissal u/s.203 Cr.P.C. He filed the above case alleging

offence punishable u/s.420 IPC and 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act (herein after referred to as the N.I. Act).

According to the complainant, the accused issued three

cheques in discharge of a debt in favour of M/s. Noor

Enterprises. When cheques were presented for encashment,

they were dishonoured for the reason of 'account closed'.

Hence, the above complaint. During enquiry, the learned

Crl.R.P. No.2243/2007

2

Magistrate directed the revision petitioner to appear

before Court. Before issuing process to the accused, the

trial Court conducted an enquiry and the revision petitioner

failed to tender evidence. In the circumstances, the

learned Magistrate was of the view that the complainant

wilfully remained absent as he is unable to make out of

prima facie case and no ground to proceed further in the

case. Accordingly, he dismissed the complaint u/s.203

Cr.P.C.

2.

Section 203 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

“203. Dismissal of complaint.- If, after considering the

statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the

witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if

any) under Section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that

there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall

dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall

briefly record his reasons for so doing.”

Section 203 requires a magistrate taking cognizance of an

offence on a complaint to form an opinion as to whether or

not there are sufficient grounds to proceed with the case.

Crl.R.P. No.2243/2007

3

This opinion must be based on the statements made by the

complainant and his witnesses and the result of the

investigation or inquiry under Sections 202, if any. The

magistrate must apply his mind to those materials and

then form his opinion as to whether or not there is

sufficient ground for proceeding.

3.

Therefore, the magistrate has to form an

opinion as to whether the process should be issued or not,

after perusal of the complaint and the consideration of the

evidence on oath. What the magistrate has to see is

whether there is any evidence in support of the averment

made in the complaint, and not whether the evidence is

sufficient to warrant a conviction. It may be noted that

when there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, the

Magistrate has to make an opinion an