SHORT NOTE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S.K. Palo, J.
Bhupendra Singh —Petitioner
Versus
Saket Kumar —Respondent
CRR.289/2015
Decided on 31.07.2015

IMPORTANT POINT
Where a complaint is dismissed for non-payment of process fee etc. such an order cannot be treated as an order of acquittal.

Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 and 139—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 204(4), 397 and 401 read with Section 482—Dishonour of cheque—Dismissal of complaint—An order summoning accused is not purely an interlocutory but is intermediate or quasi final and is open to revision—Where a complaint is dismissed for non-payment of process fee etc. such an order cannot be treated as an order of acquittal—Impugned order set aside.

       Held: Learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent in the impugned order. Where a complaint is dismissed for non-payment of process fee etc. such an order cannot be treated as an order of acquittal.

       An order summoning the accused is not purely an interlocutory but is intermediate or quasi final and hence is open to revision, as has been held in “Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pandey Vs. Uttam AIR 1999 SC 1028”. It is desirable that the Court may at the first instanceissue summons for the appearance of the accused and may issue a warrant either bailable or non-bailable in case it is satisfied that despite efforts by the Police, the accused could not be traced may also issue warrant of arrest, if it is satisfied in the description of the accused that he has absconded and may not obey the summons. Since personal liberty is paramount the Court should not issue non-bailable warrant in the first instance unless the accused is charged with heinous crimes. The Court should in the first instance issue summons, then bailable warrant and in the last non-bailable warrant if the Court is satisfied that the accused is avoiding Court’s proceedings intentionally. (Inder Mohan Goswami V. State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2008 SC 251)

       Unregistered Criminal complaint (Bhupendra Singh Vs. Saket Kumar) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is restored. The complainant is directed to present himself before the learned Trial Court on 17th August, 2015. He is directed to pay the necessary process fee within three days from his appearance failing which the complaint would render dismissal.

       Result: Revision Petition allowed.