P Santhosh Kumar vs Manoj Kumar

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 26, 2023

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1340838

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1340838
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice V.G.Arun
Decided On: Jun 26, 2023
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet/182/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P Santhosh Kumar

Respondent

Manoj Kumar

Excerpt

.....the court on the same day delivered the following:orderdated this the 26th day of june, 2023 the petitioner is the complainant in s.t.no.15 of 2014 of the judicial first class magistrate court - xii (special court for trial of cases under section 138 of the n.i.act) thiruvananthapuram. the case originated from a complaint filed by the petitioner against the first respondent, alleging commission of the offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act. the complaint was filed along with a petition for condoning the delay of 1183 days. by the impugned annexure 3 order, the learned magistrate dismissed the delay condonation petition.2. learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat, due to a bona fide mistake, the complaint was initially filed before the judicial first class magistrate court - i, thiruvananthapuram and was returned for presentation before the proper court. thereafter, the case file was entrusted with a lawyer at palakkad and for reasons unknown, the counsel failed to take steps for filing the complaint before the proper court. it is submitted that the cheque amount being rs.1,00,000/-, a lenient view may be taken and the petitioner permitted to prosecute the complaint on merits. in spite of the persuasive submissions of the learned counsel, i find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. as rightly found by the learned magistrate, the explanation offered is not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay of 1183 days. in the result, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. sd/- v.g.arun judge rk appendix of crl.rev.pet 182/2023 petitioner annexures annexure-1 the true copy of the complaint with cmp no. 8612/2012 filed before the jfcm court-i, thiruvananthapuram dated 26.09.2012 annexure-2 the true copy of the cmp no. 7470/2017in st 15/2014 dated 27.12.2017 before the temporary special court of the judicial magistrate of the first class for the trial of cases u/s 138 of the ni act, thiruvananthapuram annexure3 the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 15/2014 OF SPECIAL COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL OF CASES U/S.138 NI ACT(JMFC XI) REVISION PETITIONER/S/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: P SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED 39 YEARS S/O PARAMESWARAN (LATE), TC 962/2, KUTHIRAVILAKOM LANE, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002 BY ADV SHABU SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT/S/RESPONDENTS AND STATE/ACCUSED AND STATE: 1 MANOJ KUMAR AGED 43 YEARS, S/O BHASKARA VARMA, PARIMALA NIVAS, AKATHETHARA P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678008 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 26th day of June, 2023 The petitioner is the complainant in S.T.No.15 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - XII (Special Court for Trial of Cases under Section 138 of the N.I.Act) Thiruvananthapuram. The case originated from a complaint filed by the petitioner against the first respondent, alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was filed along with a petition for condoning the delay of 1183 days. By the impugned Annexure 3 order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the delay condonation petition.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

that, due to a bona fide mistake, the complaint was initially filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Thiruvananthapuram and was returned for presentation before the proper court. Thereafter, the case file was entrusted with a lawyer at Palakkad and for reasons unknown, the Counsel failed to take steps for filing the complaint before the proper court. It is submitted that the cheque amount being Rs.1,00,000/-, a lenient view may be taken and the petitioner permitted to prosecute the complaint on merits. In spite of the persuasive submissions of the learned Counsel, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. As rightly found by the learned Magistrate, the explanation offered is not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay of 1183 days. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE RK APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 182/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT WITH CMP NO. 8612/2012 FILED BEFORE THE JFCM COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 26.09.2012 Annexure-2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO. 7470/2017

IN ST 15/2014 DATED 27.12.2017 BEFORE THE TEMPORARY SPECIAL COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES U/S 138 OF THE NI ACT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TEMPORARY SPECIAL COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES U/S 138 OF THE NI ACT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CMP NO. 7470/2017 IN ST 15/2014 DATED 9.12.2022

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties P Santhosh Kumar vs Manoj Kumar Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice V.G.Arun