SHANU AUTOMOBILES Vs. RAMJI RAUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Sec. 397 r/w Sec. 401 of CrPC, 1973 (Sec. 438 r/w Sec. 442 of BNSS, 2023) has been filed by the applicant/complainant assailing the order dtd. 31/1/2025 (Annexure- P/2) passed in SC NIA No.169/2021 (Shanu Automobiles Vs. Ramji Raut) by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhindwara (MP) whereby criminal complaint bearing registration number SC NIA No.169/2021 has been dismissed as applicant/complainant failed to file requisite process fee under Sec. 204(4) of CrPC, 1973. In default of appearance of the complainant in terms of Sec. 256 of CrPC, 1973, accused (respondent herein) has been acquitted for commission of offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in short, is that complainant/applicant filed a complaint case under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act claiming dishonor of cheque issued by respondent on 28/6/2019. The complaint case was filed on 21/10/2019 and it was registered on 7/8/2021. Despite order, the complainant/applicant failed to pay process fee for summoning the accused (respondent herein) and neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared on the date when the case was called on for hearing. Therefore, learned Trial Court noting that complainant and his counsel did not turn up on the preceding date and is also absent on the date fixed i.e. on 31/1/2025 and have not paid process fee, therefore, observing in terms of Sec. 256 of CrPC that complainant is not interested in prosecuting the complaint and in terms of Sec. 204(4) of CrPC for want of filing the process fee, dismissed the complaint in default and acquitted the accused (respondent herein) for commission of offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has assailed the impugned order on various grounds and has submitted that earlier, complainant/applicant had paid the process fee on several occasions and Court had issued warrants against the accused. It is further submitted that only on one or two occasions, he could not pay the requisite process fee as he was not properly informed by his counsel and as such, on the date fixed, complainant could not appear as his counsel has recorded wrong date and failed to pay process fee and as such, complaint has been dismissed on account of mistake of the counsel. It is further submitted that before dismissal of the criminal complaint, no peremptory order has been passed. No warning, to the applicant/complainant, was given and the complaint was dismissed acquitting the accused which has resulted in the failure of justice. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the mistake of the applicant is a bonafide one. Applicant has requested to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, in the interest of justice and prayed to set-aside the impugned order and to restore the criminal complaint case so that justice can be done with the applicant/complainant.