Full Judgment
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order of dismissal dated 02.09.2002 made in C.C.No.161 of 2000, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore.
ORDER
1. The revision petitioner herein / complainant has preferred the revision in Crl.R.C.No.272 of 2012 against the order made in C.C.No.161 of 2000, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore, dismissing the complaint made in C.C.No.161 of 2000 for non-prosecution.
2. The complainant's case is as follows:-
On 17.05.1998, the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant and had executed a pronote in favour of complainant agreeing to pay the said loan with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. To discharge a part amount of the said loan, the accused issued cheques dated 3.02.2000 bearing Nos.0013504 and 0013505, for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,05,000/- respectively. The complainant presented the said cheques for collection through his bankers viz., Indian Bank, Sivanandha Colony Branch on 04.02.2000. But, the said cheques were returned unpaid for the reasons, "account closed" on 05.02.2000. The complainant sent lawyer's notice to the accused which was received by the accused. The accused had sent a reply notice dated 20.03.2000, making false averments. Hence, the complainant had preferred a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore against the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The learned Magistrate had issued non-bailable warrant on the accused and the same was not executed by the complainant. Hence, the case was dismissed.
4. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court, the complainant had preferred the present revision.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that the lower Court failed to consider that after the dishonour of cheque, the petitioner herein promptly took steps by initiating criminal prosecution by way of complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It was also contended that the lower Court failed to see that by reason of the prudent steps taken by the petitioner, non-bailable warrant appears to have been issued against the respondent / accused. It was argued that the learned Magistrate failed to see that the advocate engaged by the petitioner in the lower Court had failed to inform him of the hearing dates and also failed to inform him about the issuance of non-bailable warrant against the accused and as such for the inaction and non-representation of the counsel, the bonafide litigant like the petitioner should not be made to suffer, especially, when the amount involved in the case is huge and legitimately due to the petitioner herein. It was argued that the learned Magistrate on considering the conduct of the complainant's advocate ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner herein, to put-forth his case before dismissing the complaint.
6. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and on perusing the impugned order of the learned Magistrate and on hearing the arguments of both sides, this Court does not find any infirmity in the said impugned order. Therefore, the revision is dismissed.
7. In the result, the above revision is dismissed and consequently the order passed in C.C.No.161 of 2000, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore, dated 02.09.2002 is confirmed. Accordingly, ordered.