S. Jayalakshmi vs Hariharan

S. Tamilvanan, J.—This Criminal Revision has been preferred u/s 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, challenging the order, dated 07.06.2006 made in C.C. No. 558 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore.

In spite of the service of notice to the respondent, there was no representation for the respondent. Respondent was also called absent. It is seen that the petitioner herein had filed a complaint against the respondent u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the case was taken up on filed by the court below on 15.02.2005. Subsequently, due to the non-appearance of the respondent, bailable warrant was ordered to be issued to the respondent/accused by the court below on 03.05.2005. However, the petitioner/complainant did not take steps for paying the process fee and to execute the bailable warrant issued by the court below. Hence, the complaint itself was dismissed by the trial court. The impugned order reads that for the past six adjournments, the petitioner had not paid process fee and held that the attitude of the petitioner/complainant would show that she was not interested in prosecuting the case and on that ground, the complaint was dismissed, u/s 204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Mr. K. Thilageswaran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a woman, in the grounds of revision, the petitioner has stated that she was regularly paying the process fees and warrant was also issued, however, the petitioner could not execute the warrant.

Section 204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:

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.

Therefore, if the fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint, u/s 204(4) Cr.P.C. However, in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the respondent/accused had been absent before the trial court, in spite of service of notice, bailable warrant was issued. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant submitted that the petitioner herein had paid the process fees, however, she being a woman could not execute the warrant by taking personal steps. In the criminal revision petition also, there is no representation for the respondent, in spite of service of notice.

Considering the averments made by the petitioner herein and also the facts and circumstances, I find it just and reasonable to provide an opportunity to the petitioner, so as to dispose the case before the trial court on merits. However, to meet the ends of justice, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, as a condition precedent to allow the Criminal Revision Petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, on or before 10.06.2009, failing which, this criminal revision petition shall stand dismissed without any further reference to this Court.

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.