C.A.V ORDER

This petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. assailing the order of the revisional Court passed in Crl.R.P.No.228/2023 wherein the dismissal of the complaint for default by the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "N.I. Act") is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

Respondent/complainant instituted a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Upon recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and ordered issuance of summons to the petitioner/accused. As the petitioner/accused though appeared failed to appear on subsequent dates, a non-bailable warrant was issued. Despite the same, the petitioner/accused could not be secured. Consequently, the complainant invoked Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. seeking issuance of proclamation, which was accordingly ordered by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner/accused was thereafter declared as a proclaimed offender, and the complainant was directed to furnish details of the accused’s property so as to enable further proceedings under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C.

3. The learned Magistrate, however, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant failed to furnish the property particulars of the accused as required under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. The said order was assailed before the Revisional Court, which, upon consideration, allowed the revision petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, placing reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.201462/2019, contends that dismissal of the complaint by the learned Magistrate on account of non- compliance amounts to an acquittal within the meaning of Section 255 of the Cr.P.C., and therefore the complainant ought to have invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court instead of filing a revision petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the dismissal was not on merits of the case but only on account of non-compliance with the requirement under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C., and therefore the same cannot be treated as an order of acquittal. It is further contended that in such circumstances, the revision petition was perfectly maintainable.

6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and have perused the order of the Revisional Court with care.

7. The following points, therefore, arise for consideration:

"(i) Whether dismissal of the complaint filed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act post-appearance, on the ground of non-production of property detail under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C., can be construed as an acquittal under Section 255 of the Cr.P.C., thereby rendering the revision petition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. not maintainable?

(ii) What order?"

FINDINGS ON POINT No.(i):

8. It is true that Section 204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in express terms, does not make any specific reference to dismissal of a complaint on the ground of non-furnishing of property particulars. The said provision, by its plain language, contemplates dismissal of a complaint where the complainant fails to pay the requisite process fees within a reasonable time. However, the legislative intent underlying Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. is not confined merely to the payment of process fees; rather, it embodies a broader principle that a private complaint cannot be permitted to proceed when the complainant fails to perform an act essential for the effective service of process and for enabling the Court to take further steps in accordance with law.

9. In this context, the rationale of Section 204(4) extends to other instances where the complainant’s omission stalls or frustrates the procedural progression of the case. Thus, even though the non-fu