The court held that a dismissal of a complaint under Section 204(4) must be a reasoned order, reflecting a judicious application of discretion, rather than a mechanical decision.

ORDER :

SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.

This Crl.M.C. challenges the dismissal of a complaint filed by the petitioner for failure to take out steps for the issuance of a summons to the accused. The major premise of the contention of the petitioner is that the discretion vested with the Magistrate under Section 204 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires such power to be exercised judiciously and with due circumspection, and a mechanical dismissal on the very first posting date is not envisaged in law.

2. The relevant facts disclosed in the Crl.M.C. are as follows: Annexure A1 complaint was filed by the petitioner alleging that the 2nd respondent, after receiving an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- from him towards arranging a tour to Japan, had cheated him by not returning the amount when the tour did not materialise. The complaint was forwarded by the learned CJM to the Museum Police Station for investigation. A refer report was filed by the police, to which the petitioner filed a protest complaint. The learned CJM took cognizance of the offence and ordered the issuance of summons to the accused. However, on 29.02.2020, which happened to be the very first posting date after the order for issuance of summons, the learned CJM dismissed the complaint, vide Annexure 2 order holding as follows:

“Complainant absent, no representation. No steps taken. Complaint dismissed u/s 204(4) of CrPC.”

3. The above order was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge VI, Thiruvananthapuram, by filing Crl.R.P.No.19 of 2020. However, the said revision petition was dismissed by the Sessions Court vide Annexure A4 order holding that no reason for interference had been made out. Thus aggrieved by Annexures A4 and A2 orders, this Crl.M.C. is filed.

4. Heard Sri.T.M.Chandran, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri.Sanal P.Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client was diligent in prosecuting the case right from the institution of the complaint and that he had been vigilant enough to file a protest complaint upon filing of the refer report by the police. After recording the sworn statement of the petitioner and a witness, for which there were different postings on various dates, on which dates the complainant punctually appeared before the court and an order for the issuance of summons had been issued. Thereafter, on 29.02.2020, i.e., the first posting date after issuance of the order of summons, when the case was called out for consideration, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner/complainant and no steps for issuance of summons had been taken. This, according to the learned counsel, happened solely because the clerk of the complainant's counsel had erroneously noted the posting date as 29.04.2020 instead of 29.02.2020.

6. It is the contention of Sri.Chandran that the learned CJM erred in rendering Annexure A2 order dismissing the complaint, invoking Section 204 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for not taking steps to issue summons. The learned counsel further contended that the order of dismissal impugned was cryptic and devoid of reasons, and that, as the power under Section 204 (4) of the Crl.P.C. is discretionary in nature, it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to elaborate on the reasons for the exercise of such discretion, especially when it detrimentally affects the complainant. Judicious exercise of the power under Section 204 (4) is thus mandatory, and cryptic and unreasoned one-line orders like the one in the case at hand are abhorrent. The dismissal of the complaint mechanically on the first posting date, itself without giving an adeq