It is explicit that the Legislature never intended to dismiss the complaint for non-payment of the process fees after the service of summons on the accused or after his appearance before the Court or after his production before the Court.
In the present case, the complaint was dismissed by the court below only after the appearance of the accused before the court below for the non-payment of process-fee for issuing steps under sections 82 and 83 of the code against the accused. It is true that the complainant was not present before the court below on that day. There was also no representation for the complainant before the court below on that day. However, the court below did not dismiss the complaint for the absence of the complainant, but for the failure of the complainant to pay the process-fee. Since the warrant, resulting in the issuance of proclamation under section 82 of the Code and attachment under section 83 of the Code, was issued in this case under section 87(b) of the Code, the complainant should not have been required to pay the process fees for issuing the proclamation under section 82 of the Code or attachment under section 83 of the Code and consequently, the complaint should not have been dismissed under section 204(4) of the Code. Therefore, the order impugned cannot be said to be legal, proper and correct and consequently, the same cannot be sustained.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 1003 of 2015
Decided On: 22.09.2015
Ayodya Printers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Bhaskaran Pillai Sudheendra Kumar, J.
