In a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court, a petition was dismissed due to non-payment of process fees in the case of Gajanan Parshuram Chopade v. Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit. The Court addressed the implications of non-payment of fees on the trial proceedings. Stay informed about the legal ramifications of this significant judgement.
Facts
- Summons issued against the accused served only through Whatsapp and not through email.
- The Court did not consider this as proper service of summons.
- Directed fresh summons to be issued against the petitioner/accused on filing of the process fee and registered cover.
- Summons through post not received back.
- Fresh summons to be issued against the accused through all available modes including speed post.
- Complainant directed to file postal receipt with tracking report attached with certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
- No remedy for the complainant except through an application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.
- Matter scheduled for 01.04.2021 at 12:00 pm.
Arguments
- The petitioner relies on the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Gajanan Parshuram Chopade v. Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Barloni, 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1000.
- The complaint was dismissed due to non-filing of the process fee by the respondent/complainant.
- The proper remedy for the respondent was to appear before the Trial Court as per Section 204 (4) of the Cr.P.C.
- The trial has advanced to the stage of recording the statement of the petitioner/accused.
- The respondent argues that the petition should be dismissed due to delay in filing.
- The respondent contends that the delay in filing the petition is unreasonable.
- According to the respondent, the delay affects the validity of the petition.
Analysis
- The learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint under Section 204(4) of the Cr.P.C. for non-payment of process fees within a reasonable time.
- Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. allows for the acquittal of the accused if the complainant does not appear on the appointed day, unless the Magistrate decides to adjourn the hearing.
- Comparison between the powers under Section 204(4) and Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. in relation to the dismissal of a complaint or acquittal of the accused.
- Different outcomes when summons are issued but process fee is not filed by the complainant versus when the complainant fails to appear on the returnable date after filing the process fee.
- Explanation on the application of Section 204(4) and Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. based on the stage of the trial and the presence of the accused.
- Illustration of the remedy available to the complainant when facing dismissal of the complaint under Section 204(4) versus when the accused is acquitted under Section 256.
- Delineation between the situations where the accused is acquitted under Section 256 and where the complaint is dismissed under Section 204(4) in the context of summons-case trials by Magistrates.
- Clarification on the absence of the petitioner/accused in court due to the specific application of Section 204(4) in the current case.
- The law emerges from the discussion in this part as follows:
- If a complaint is dismissed due to non-appearance or death of the complainant after the accused has appeared on summons or otherwise, it amounts to the acquittal of the accused under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.
- The remedy for the complainant in such cases is to file an appeal as provided under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.
Decision
- The complaint was dismissed due to non-payment of process fees or other fees as per Section 204(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- No other submissions were made by the petitioner’s counsel to challenge the dismissal.
- The pending application was also disposed of.
- The petition was ultimately dismissed.
- The matter is scheduled to be brought up again at 11:00 am.
Case Title: SUKHRAM BANSAL Vs. ASHOK KUMAR (2024:DHC:4035)
Case Number: CRL.M.C.-2764/2022
