w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Nibu Das Proprietor, Haritha Theeram, Thiruvananthapuram v/s M/s. Pothys Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its General Manager, Savanan & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- POTHYS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52321TN2014PTC096278

Company & Directors' Information:- G DAS & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74992WB1935PTC008299

Company & Directors' Information:- DAS & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U72100AS1946PTC000740

Company & Directors' Information:- K C DAS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15433WB1946PTC013592

Company & Directors' Information:- D K DAS & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1938PTC009288

Company & Directors' Information:- U C DAS & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U31200WB1987PTC042709

Company & Directors' Information:- DAS & DAS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1950PTC019222

Company & Directors' Information:- A S DAS CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1957PTC023552

Company & Directors' Information:- DAS-G INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24304DL2020PTC370609

Company & Directors' Information:- P K DAS & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210WB1955PTC022259

    Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 357 of 2020

    Decided On, 19 March 2020

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

    For the Petitioner: P. Thomas Geeverghese, E.S. Firos, Advocates. For the Respondents: C.S. Hrithwik, Sr. PP.



Judgment Text

The petitioner is the defacto complainant, who has filed C.M.P.No.497/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging the offences punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. against the respondents therein. It is seen that on 17.01.2019, a sworn statement of the complainant was taken and thereafter one witness was also examined. Subsequently, the case was posted on several dates; but the complainant was absent and ultimately on 10.12.2019 notice was issued to the complainant, but still there was no representation, as a result of which the complaint was dismissed for default.The complaint is for an offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and it is seen that the sworn statement of the complainant was already recorded. Statement of one of the witnesses was also recorded. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has started inquiry under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. After having proceeding with the inquiry, it was not proper on the part of the Magistrate for dismissing the complaint for default. If at all the complainant was not present and further evidence was not adduced, the learned Magistrate should have considered the sworn statement and the statement of the witness on record to decide whether it could be proceeded on merits or not. Without having done so, it was improper on the part of the Magistrate in dismissing the complaint for default. Moreover, it is seen that the respondents are not residing within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and therefore, the inquiry under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory, which the learned Magistrate has not done.Under the above circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and C.M.P.No.497/2019 i

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

s restored to the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed in accordance with law. The Crl.R.P. is allowed.
O R