RAJARAM Vs. SUNDRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II Poonamallee Chengai-MGR District (E) in C.C. No. 33/94 dismissing the complaint under S. 204(4) of the Cr. P.C.

(2.) The petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Poonamallee, for the offences under Ss. 347, 350, 352, 506, Part II and 384 read with S. 34, IPC. The complaint was taken on file, the sworn statement was recorded and notice was ordered to the accused persons on 11-5-1994 for the appearance of the accused on 29-6-1994. But the revision petitioner complainant did not pay the process fee for the issue of the summons to the accused persons till the adjourned date and therefore the learned Judicial Magistrate on 29-6-1984, having found that no process fee was paid, dismissed the complaint under S. 204(4), Cr. P.C. It is against this order of dismissal, the complainant has come forward with this revision.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would argue before me that as the offences alleged in the complaint are warrant cases, for which the complainant is not bound to pay the process fee as held in Babu Ram v. State of U.P. (1978 Cri LJ 1430 : 1978 All LJ 251 and even assuming that the complainant has to pay the process fee, Rule 119 of Criminal Rules of practice contemplates the Chief Clerk of the Court to prepare a notice showing the amount of fees to be paid in the Court fee stamps and furnish the same to the complainant for the payment of the process fee, but as the Chief Clerk of the court following this rule did not furnish the complainant the details of the amount of fees payable by the complainant, the order of dismissal of the complaint passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is illegal and therefore the same has to be set aside and to order for the restoration of the complaint on file.