The revision petitioner is the complainant in CC 2448/2010 on the files of the court of the judicial magistrate of first class-V, Ernakulam, who in this revision petition challenges the order passed by the court below dismissing the complaint under section 204 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”).

2. The facts leading to the present revision petition can be briefly stated as follows:-

The revision petitioner filed a complaint before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-V, Ernakulam against the 2nd respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After complying with the legal formalities, summons was issued to the 2nd respondent under Section 204 (1) (a) of the Code. In response to the summons issued by the court, the 2nd respondent appeared before the court through his counsel. Copy of the complaint was also given to the 2nd respondent through his counsel and the case stood posted to 7-2-2013 for recording the plea of the 2nd respondent. On that day, the 2nd respondent was not present before the court below. However, there was representation for the 2nd respondent. An application filed to condone the absence of the 2nd respondent was dismissed by the court below. The court below also issued non-bailable warrant against the 2nd respondent. The complainant had taken steps for issuing non-bailable warrant against the 2nd respondent in obedience to the order passed by the court below. However, the non-bailable warrant could not be executed. In the said circumstances, the court below directed the complainant to take steps under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code against the 2nd respondent. Finally, on 5-8-2014, when the case was called, the court below dismissed the complaint under Section 204 (4) of the Code. The order passed by the court below on 5-8-2014 is extracted hereunder:-

“Complainant is absent and not represented. No steps are taken against the accused so far despite of granting sufficient time from 7-5- 2014. Hence, the complaint is dismissed under Section 204 (4) Cr.P.C.”

3. It is clear from the above order that the complaint was dismissed by the court below under Section 204 (4) of the Code for not having taken steps against the 2nd respondent.

4. Now the question to be considered is as to whether the dismissal of the complaint by the learned Magistrate under Section 204 (4) of the Code is legal, proper and correct.

5. Chapter XVI of the Code deals with commencement of proceedings before Magistrates. Section 204 of the Code deals with the provisions for issuing process for the attendance of the accused before the court. In this context, it is profitable to understand Section 204 of the Code, which is extracted hereunder:-

“204. Issue of process :- (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be –

a) a summons -case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or

b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.

2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed.

(3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint.

(4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of section 87”.

6. It is clear from Clause (a) of Sub Section (1) of Section 204 of the Code that if the Court taking co