IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 30TH MAGHA, 1946 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1643 OF 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2012 IN CC NO.17 OF 2011 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, MUVATTUPZHA REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

JOHAR VINOD, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, PROPRIETOR, R.G.ENTERPRISES, 28/786 B, SAMTHRIPTHI LANE, CHERUPARAMBATH ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682020.

BY ADV. SRI.P.GEORGE VARGHESE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:

1 MR. RAJESH SHENOY, RASNA PRIVATE LTD., C/O. AKSHAYA ENTERPRISES, 43/280, CITIZEN ROAD, AYYAPANKAVU, KOCHI 682018.

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031.

SRI. RANJIT GEORGE, PP THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

K.V.JAYAKUMAR, J.

=========================

Crl. R. P. No. 1643 of 2012 =========================

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2025

O R D E R

Impugning the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Muvattupuzha in C.C.No. 17/2011 dated 27.4.2012, the complainant preferred this revision petition.

2. The revision petitioner herein has filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that, there was no representation for the complainant and no steps were taken as directed by the Court.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/complainant submitted that the learned Magistrate ought not have dismissed the complaint under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. There is no willful delay or latches on the part of the revision petitioner/complainant to represent the matter and for the payment of process fees. Further, the learned Magistrate ought to have granted an opportunity to allege and prove his case.

5. Due to the dismissal of the complaint under Section

204(4) Cr.P.C., the revision petitioner lost his valuable right to prosecute the accused and thereby great prejudice is caused to him. According to the revision petitioner, an opportunity is to be granted to him to allege and prove his case, in the interest of justice.

Otherwise, there will be miscarriage of justice.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, notice to the accused/respondent is dispensed with.

7. Before further discussion, it may be useful to extract Section 204(4) Cr.P.C.

“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.”

8. On perusal of Section 204(4) Cr.P.C., it could be seen that the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint, if the complainant fails to remit the process fee within a reasonable time. The words ‘may’ used in the said subsection clearly indicate that the Magistrate has got sufficient discretion, while exercising his powers. B