Magistrate's Power Under S.204(4) CrPC To Dismiss Complaint Must Be Exercised Judiciously With Reasoned Orders: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the Magistrate's power to dismiss criminal complaints under Section 204(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) must be exercised judiciously and supported by reasoned orders rather than invoked mechanically.Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was delivering judgment in a criminal miscellaneous case, which challenged the dismissal of a complaint filed by the petitioner...
The Kerala High Court has held that the Magistrate's power to dismiss criminal complaints under Section 204(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) must be exercised judiciously and supported by reasoned orders rather than invoked mechanically.
Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was delivering judgment in a criminal miscellaneous case, which challenged the dismissal of a complaint filed by the petitioner for failure to take steps for the issuance of a summons to the accused.
The case arose when a complaint was filed by the petitioner alleging that the second respondent cheated him of a certain amount of money which was acquired towards arranging a tour to Japan. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Thiruvananthapuram took cognizance and issued summons and on the first posting date after the order for issuance of summons, the CJM dismissed the complaint under Section 204(4) of CrPC.
For context, Section 204(4) of CrPC stated that “when by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint."
The order of the CJM was challenged before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court has also upheld the dismissal and hence the petitioner approached the High Court.
The Counsel for the petitioner contended that his client was diligent in prosecuting the case right from the institution of the complaint and has appeared before the Court on different postings on various dates. It was further submitted that there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on the first posting date after issuance of the order of summons because of a clerical error in noting the posting date.
The petitioner further contended that the impugned order of dismissal was cryptic and devoid of reasons. It was argued that since the power under Section 204 (4) of the Crl.P.C is discretionary in nature, the Magistrate must elaborate the reasons for the exercise of such discretion, especially when it detrimentally affects the complainant.
The Court noted that Section 204(4) CrPC provides that where process fees are not paid within a “reasonable time,” the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.
Relying on the decision in Ayodya Printers Ltd. Ernakulam v State of Kerala and another [2015 (4) KHC 897], the Court noted that before invoking the power of dismissal of a complaint under Section 204(4), the Magistrate has to apply his mind to determine whether there was a wilful or deliberate failure to par the process fee within a reasonable time.
The Court further emphasized that the phrase “reasonable time” mentioned in the provision requires a contextual and fact-specific assessment.
“The words 'reasonable time', as used in Section 204 (4), mandates that the Magistrate shall, before proceedings to dismiss for non-remittance of process, ascertain whether there was a failure to remit the process within a reasonable time. What is reasonable would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, thus giving sufficient leeway for the Magistrate to suit the time period to the fact situation of the matter at hand.” Court noted
It further added that the use of the word “may” indicates discretion, and not a mandatory consequence.
“The word 'may' as used in the provision further facilitates the Magistrate to test the reasonableness and conveys that the provision does not impose a strict regimen leading to dismissal and dismissal alone.” Court added.
The Court held that these elements collectively impose a duty on Magistrates to exercise discretion judiciously, rather than treat dismissal as an automatic outcome of procedural default.
“The cumulative effect of the words of Section 204(4) is that any order invoking the power of dismissal under the said Section must be a speaking order which would reveal that the learned Magistrate had applied his mind and exercised the mandate of the provision to ascertain the gravity of the failure to remit the process in a reasonable period, and if circumstances exist pointing to the need for dismissing the matter on the said count, the same should be elaborated and explained sufficiently.” Court noted.
The Court thus held that the order of dismissal of the criminal complaint by the Magistrate on the first posting date for the reason that the process has not been paid without proper explanation is against the requirement of reasonableness within Section 204(4) Cr.P.C.
The Court hence set aside the impugned orders and allowed the petition.
Case Title: Aloysious Fernandez Dickson v State of Kerala and Anr.
Case No: Crl. MC 6283/ 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 214
Counsel for Petitioner: T.M. Chandran, R. Arun
Counsel for Respondent: Sanal P. Raj (PP)