Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri D.R. Chaudhary, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the State of U.P.

2. This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 11.3.2011 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 5, Meerut and to further direct him to pass appropriate orders on the application dated 5.3.2011 presented by the applicant.

3. The facts of the case are that the applicant Smt. Geeta is the complainant in complaint case No. 2847/9 of 2010, Smt. Geeta v. Teja and another under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, P.S. Hastinapur pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 5, Meerut. The complaint was filed in the year 2006 in the Court of Ist Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial Magistrate, Meerut with allegations of kidnapping and rape against the accused Teja and Balraj. Learned Magistrate examined the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses Ramesh Chandra and Vijay Pal under Sections 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate, vide order dated 28.7.2006, took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused persons to face trial under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and the complainant was directed to take steps within a week.

4. Earlier this case was registered as criminal case No. 281 of 2006 and presently it is registered as complaint case No. 2847 of 2010.

On 5.3.2011, an application was moved on behalf of the complainant before the Magistrate stating therein that she does not wish to proceed with the complaint and is not willing to pay the process fee and, therefore, the complaint be dismissed. This application was supported by an affidavit. This application was actually presented in Court on 11.3.2011 and the Magistrate passed an order that the application be put up on the date fixed.

5. The grievance of the applicant is that the complainant is the master of her case and she does not wish to proceed with the case and, therefore, the Magistrate was bound to dismiss the complaint under Section 204 (4) Cr.P.C. as the complainant was not wiling to pay the process fee and, therefore, the Magistrate is bound to dismiss the criminal complaint.

6. Sri Trivedi admitted that the complainant has entered into a compromise with the accused persons and, therefore, the complainant has promised to get her complaint dismissed and, therefore, she has filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the aforesaid purpose.

7. Sri D.R. Chaudhary, learned Government Advocate, replying to the contentions raised by Sri Trivedi, submits that the case is triable by Court of Sessions and after passing a summoning order in terms of Section 204 (1) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint under Section 204 (4) Cr.P.C. on the ground of failure of the complainant to pay the process fee. He contends that in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the complainant is not required to pay any process fee and the process fee in accordance with Rule 17 of the General Rules (Criminal) is required to be paid only in cases where cognizance has been taken in the offences, which are non-cognizable.

8. Section 204 Cr.P.C. provides as follows :

Section 204 Cr.P.C. 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 accompan