Dream Japan Tour Turns Nightmare: Kerala HC Slams Mechanical Complaint Dismissal

In a significant ruling on procedural fairness, the Kerala High Court has held that Magistrates cannot dismiss criminal complaints under Section 204(4) of the CrPC on a whim. Justice Syam Kumar V.M. set aside orders dismissing a cheating complaint filed by Aloysious Fernandez Dickson against Reghunath, manager of Nashe Tours & Travels Pvt Ltd., emphasizing that such powers demand judicious exercise with reasoned orders . This comes as reports highlight the court's stress on avoiding "cryptic and unreasoned one-line orders."

From Promised Getaway to Cheating Charge

The saga began when petitioner Aloysious Fernandez Dickson handed over Rs 1.8 lakh to Reghunath for a Japan tour that never happened. When the money wasn't refunded, Dickson filed a private complaint (CC No.1/2020) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging cheating.

Police investigated under a forwarded complaint but filed a refer report. Dickson protested, leading the Magistrate to take cognizance, record sworn statements from Dickson and a witness, and order summons to the accused. But on February 29, 2020 —the very first posting for summons return—the court noted: “Complainant absent, no representation. No steps taken. Complaint dismissed u/s 204(4) of CrPC.”

Dickson challenged this before the Additional District & Sessions Court-VI, Thiruvananthapuram (Cr.R.P. No.19/2020), but it was dismissed on November 17, 2021. Undeterred, he approached the High Court via CRL.MC No.6283/2021, decided on April 8, 2026.

'Clerical Slip, Not Apathy': Petitioner's Defense

Dickson argued the absence stemmed from his counsel's clerk mistakenly noting the date as April 29, 2020 , instead of February 29. He stressed his diligence—appearing punctually for evidence recording—and urged that Section 204(4) discretion requires judicious application , not mechanical dismissal on day one.

Citing Ayodya Printers Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2015 (4) KHC 897) , counsel T.M. Chandran highlighted the need to check for "wilful failure" to pay process fees within reasonable time. He also invoked Prabhakaran v. Muhammedali (Crl.R.P. No.361/2016) for granting opportunities to prosecute diligently. The one-line dismissal, he said, showed no application of mind.

Prosecution Pushes Back: 'Diligence Lacking'

Public Prosecutor Sanal P. Raj countered that Dickson knew the summons process requirements. Posting for "return of summons" implied steps must be taken by then. Absence demonstrated apathy , justifying dismissal. He defended both lower court orders as valid.

Decoding Section 204(4): No Room for Arbitrariness

Justice Syam Kumar V.M. dissected Section 204(4) CrPC : "When by any law... process-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."

The court clarified "reasonable time" and "may" demand context-specific assessment, not routine invocation. Drawing from Ayodya Printers , Magistrates must probe wilful/deliberate failure . Prabhakaran reinforced judicious, non-arbitrary discretion, favoring opportunities for diligence.

Dismissals need speaking orders revealing applied mind—cryptic ones fail this test. Here, first-day dismissal without chance to explain a clerical error flouted reasonableness.

Key Observations from the Bench

"Section 204 (4) Cr.P.C. empowers a Magistrate to dismiss a complaint when the process fees... are not paid within a reasonable time. However... the Magistrate has to apply his mind to determine whether there was a wilful or deliberate failure..."

"The dismissal of a complaint for non-payment of the process fee... is not a routine or mechanical process. The provision does not envisage it to be so at all."

"Any order invoking the power of dismissal under the said Section must be a speaking order which would reveal that the learned Magistrate had applied his mind..."

"The order of dismissal... on the first posting date... without a proper explanation... is anathema to the requirement of reasonableness..."

Justice Restored: Complaint Revived

The High Court allowed the CRL.MC, setting aside both impugned orders (Annexure A2 & A4) as "unsustainable in law." The complaint stands resurrected , with directions for the Magistrate to proceed lawfully.

This ruling safeguards complainants from procedural traps, mandating reasoned scrutiny before dismissals. It signals to lower courts: procedural powers serve justice, not shortcuts—potentially curbing hasty closures in cheating and similar cases.