Complainant in C.C.No.291/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Attingal is the revision petitioner herein.
2. The complainant - Bank filed a private complaint against the first respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and after enquiry, the case was taken on file as C.C.No.291/2014. On 19.11.2014, the case was posted for return of summons of the accused. On 21.10.2014, there was a specific direction to remit the process fees to issue process to the accused. When the case was taken up on 19.11.2014, there was no appearance for the complainant and no steps was taken. So, the learned magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 204 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is being challenged by the revision petitioner - complainant in the lower court by filing this revision.
3. Though notice was ordered to the respondent by special messenger and it is served on her, she remained absent.
4. Heard the Counsel for the revision petitioner and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent.
5. The Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that in fact, along with the complaint, steps was taken, but, it was somehow overlooked and the process was paid on that day, but, that was not received and the complaint was dismissed. He prayed for an opportunity for the complainant to conduct the case.
6. Heard the Public Prosecutor also.
7. The case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the revision petitioner against the first respondent alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. After taking the complaint on file, it was posted for the return of summons on 19.11.2014. There was a direction to take steps on 21.10.2014. I am not going to the question as to whether the submission made by the Counsel for the revision petitioner that though there was a representation and process was paid on that day, it was not received by the court below and the complaint was dismissed, are correct or not. However, on the date on which it was posted for return of summons, summons was not taken. It is true that under Section 204(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, court has got power to dismiss the complaint if process is not taken as directed. But, it is not always mandatory, but, it is only a directory. Court can, in appropriate cases, grant time for taking steps also. Considering the fact that the complainant is a Bank, the court below should have granted some time for the purpose. So, considering the circumstances, this court feels that an opportunity has to be given to the complainant - Bank to proceed with the case, for which purpose, the order passed by the court below dismissing the complaint 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 revision is allowed and the order dismissing the complaint under Section 204(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The learned magistrate is directed to take the case on file and give an opportunity to the revision petitioner to take steps and then disposed of the case afresh in accordance with law.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge