The complainant in ST.No.334/2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam is the revision petitioner herein. 2. The case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the revision petitioner against the second respondent alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and after conducting enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case was taken on file as ST.No.334/2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and it was posted for taking steps. But in spite of opportunity given, the steps were not taken. So the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 204 (4) of the Code. Aggrieved by the same the present revision has been filed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that after taking the case on file, he was informed that the case will Crl.R.P.No.1846 of 2014 2 be transferred to some other court and he will be getting intimation from that court and he was under the bonafide belief that the case was transferred and he will be getting intimation. Later when he enquired, he came to know that the case was dismissed for not taking steps. So he prayed for allowing the revision granting opportunity to conduct the case.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that there is no illegality committed by the court below. Heard the Public Prosecutor also.
5. Though I am not fully satisfied with the reasons stated by the revision petitioner that he was under the bonafide belief that the case was transferred and he will be getting intimation from the transferee court and that was the reason for not taking the steps, this Court feels that dismissal of the complaint under Section 204(4) of the Code for not taking steps is not always mandatory. The court can in appropriate cases grant time for taking steps. Further, it is also seen from the statement of facts that the complaint was filed with a delay condonation application and it was after hearing that the delay was condoned and the case was taken on file. So, considering the circumstances, this Court feels that an opportunity has to be given to the complainant to take steps especially when she was diligently prosecuting the case from 2009 onwards. So, under Crl.R.P.No.1846 of 2014 3 the circumstances, this Court feels that an opportunity has to be given to the complainant to prosecute the case for which the order passed by the court below has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law. So the order of the lower court dismissing the complaint under Section 204(4) of the Code for not taking steps by the complainant is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The court below is directed to take the complaint on file and give notice to the accused, if she does not appear as directed by this Court and then proceed with the case in accordance with law. Considering the fact that the respondent/accused had appeared before this Court and the case is of the year 2009, this Court feels that a direction can be given to the parties to appear before the court below so that the court below can proceed with the case in accordance with law. So, parties are directed to appear before the court below on 2.12.2014.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
cl /true copy/ Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
P.S to Judge