Dismissal Of Complaint For Non Payment Of Process Fees Revisable : Kerala High Court
14th Aug, 2021
The Kerala High Court has seen that if a criminal grievance is excused for non installment of interaction charges or different expenses managed under Section 204(4) Code of Criminal Procedure, the equivalent is definitely not an appealable request, yet revisable. The court said that if the excusal of a protest is for non appearance or passing of the complainant, similar sums to vindication of the charged under Section 256 CrPC. Along these lines, the cure of the complainant is to record an allure as given under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C, Justice A. Badharudeen noticed.
For this situation, the complainant, whose check bob grievance was excused for his non-appearance, moved toward the High Court by recording an allure. The court analyzed the lawful position in regards to the issue whether such request of Magistrate is appealable or revisable. Alluding to important arrangements of the Code, the court saw that excusal of a grumbling under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C is unmistakable and unique in relation to excusal of an objection for non appearance or demise of a complainant. "In the event that a grumbling is excused for non appearance or passing of a complainant, the Magistrate would get legal assent to do as such just under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. This arrangement orders vindication of the denounced.", the adjudicator noticed. Alluding to the Supreme Court judgment in V.K Bhat v. G.Ravi Kishore [(2016) 13 SCC 243 : 2016 KHC 6254], the court saw that when a protest is excused, rather than absolving the denounced as given under Section 256 on the ground of non appearance of the complainant, the said request adds up to quittance of the blamed as given under Section 256 to Cr.P.C. "21. Consequently the law rises up out of the above conversation is as under:
(I) If the excusal of a protest is for non appearance or passing of the complainant, after appearance of the blamed on help for summons or something else, similar sums to quittance of the blamed under Section 256 for Cr.P.C and consequently the cure of the complainant is to record an allure as given under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.
(ii) If a protest is excused for non installment of interaction expenses or different charges managed under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C, the equivalent is certainly not an appealable request and consequently, the said request is revisable.", the Court said.
On benefits of the case, the court noticed that the Magistrate excused the pardon request documented by the complainant alongside clinical endorsement showing his treatment for loose bowels and retching. In such a case, the Magistrate should have conceded a suspension as opposed to excusing the grumbling, the court noticed while permitting the allure.