Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, accused nos. 1 to 4 in Regular Criminal Case No. 762 of 2007, filed two criminal writ petitions challenging the order dated 1.10.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, FC, Court No. 2, Nagpur, issuing process against them under Sections 120B, 468, 471 IPC. The respondent/complainant had filed the complaint in 2007. On 25.6.2008, the Magistrate made a noting in the order sheet directing issuance of summons to the accused subject to payment of process fees. However, the complainant never paid the process fees. After a long delay, on 1.10.2016, the Magistrate passed a separate order issuing process against the accused. The petitioners argued that under Section 204(4) CrPC, failure to pay process fees within reasonable time (between the order and the next date) mandates dismissal of the complaint. They relied on Rajaram v. Sundram, 1995 Cri LJ 3418. The respondent contended that the noting on 25.6.2008 was not a valid order. The High Court examined both orders. It found that the noting on 25.6.2008 was not a separate order of issuance of process but merely a direction to issue summons upon payment of fees. The impugned order dated 1.10.2016 was a proper order. However, the Court held that since the complainant failed to pay process fees within reasonable time, the Magistrate should have dismissed the complaint under Section 204(4) CrPC. The Court quashed the order dated 1.10.2016 and dismissed the complaint. The petitions were allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Issuance of Process - Section 204(4) CrPC - Non-payment of process fees - The Magistrate's order dated 1.10.2016 issuing process against accused nos. 1 to 5 under Sections 120B, 468, 471 IPC was challenged on ground that earlier order dated 25.6.2008 directing issuance of summons was conditional on payment of process fees, which was never paid. The Court held that the noting in the order sheet on 25.6.2008 did not amount to a valid order of issuance of process as it was not a separate order. However, the impugned order dated 1.10.2016 was a proper order of issuance of process. The Court further held that under Section 204(4) CrPC, if process fees are not paid within reasonable time (between order and next date), the complaint must be dismissed. Since the complainant failed to pay process fees, the complaint ought to have been dismissed. The Court quashed the order dated 1.10.2016 and dismissed the complaint. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate could pass an order of issuance of process on 1.10.2016 when the complainant had not paid process fees as per the earlier order dated 25.6.2008, and whether the noting in the order sheet on 25.6.2008 constitutes a valid order of issuance of process.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed both writ petitions, quashed the order dated 1.10.2016 issuing process, and dismissed the complaint for non-compliance with Section 204(4) CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 204(4) CrPC mandates dismissal of complaint if process fees not paid within reasonable time
- reasonable time is between order of issuance and next date fixed
- order of issuance of process must be a separate order not mere noting in order sheet
