What is the diffrence between dismissal of the complaint under section 203 of CrPC and 204(4) and 256 CrPc Dismissal of the complaint under Negotiable instruments Act

 

What is the diffrence between dismissal of the complaint under section 203 of CrPC and 204(4) and 256 CrPc Dismissal of the complaint  under Negotiable instruments Act

 

According to Section 203 of CrPC,

“The Magistrate can also dismiss the complaint if inquiry or

investigation under Section 202 result no ground for

proceedings”, i.e, after considering the statements of the

complainant and its witnesses under Section 200 and the

result of investigation under Section 202, the Magistrate is

of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed

in the matter, he shall dismiss the complaint with brief

recorded reasons.

Dismissal of a complaint is dealt under Section

204(4) of Cr.P.C. Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C is extracted

below:

“204: Issue of process:--

(1) xxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx

(4)When by any law for the time being in forceany processfees

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.

xxxx xxxx xxxx”

Going by Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C, the Magistrate may

dismissthe complaint if process fees or other fees failed to

be paid by the complainant. Further, in the event of non

appearance or death of a complainant has been stipulated in

Section 256 of Cr.P.C.For clarity, the said provision is

extracted as under:“

S.256: Non appearance or death of complainant:--

(1)If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the

dayappointed for the appearance of the accused, or any

daysubsequent thereto to which the hearing may be

adjourned,the complainant does not appear, the

Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore

contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he

thinks it proper to adjournthe hearing of the case to some

other day:

Provided that where the complainant is represented by a

pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution orwhere

the Magistrate is of opinion that the

personalattendance of the complainant is not

necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance

and proceedwith the case.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far asmay be,

apply also to cases where the non-appearance of

thecomplainant is due to his death.”

The Plain reading of the above provision would make it

unequivocally clear that when the complainant did not

appear, the Magistrate shall, acquit the accused unless for

some reasonhe thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the

case to some other day. The dismissal of a complaint for

non appearance of the complainant amounts to acquittal as

contemplated under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. Appeal in

cases of acquittal is provided under Section 378 of

Cr.P.C. Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C provides that if an order of

acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon acomplaint

and the High Court, on an application made to it by the

complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal

from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present

such anappeal to the High Court.

However, the Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C, where dismissal of a

complaint is provided for non payment of process fees or

other fees payable, the said order is not an appealable order.

Therefore, the remedy of the complainant is to file a

revision before the Sessions Judge as provided under

Section 399 of Cr.P.C or before the High Court as

stipulated in Section 401 of Cr.P.C.

Can the accused seek compounding of an offence for cheque dishonour without the consent of the complainant?

In Meters and Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta

(2018) 1 SCC 560 the Apex court held that though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the Accused". However, the Constitution bench judgement of the Apex court

in the case of ‘In Re: Expeditious Trial Of Cases Under Section138 Of N.I. Act 1881’ 2021 SCC OnLine SC 325, decided on 16.04.2021 it has been held that

“In Meters and Instruments (supra), this Court was of

the opinion that Section 143 of the Act confers implied

poweron the Magistrate to discharge the accused, if the

complainantis compensated to the satisfaction of the

court. On that analogy, it was held that apart from

compounding by theconsent of the parties, the Trial Court

has the jurisdiction topass appropriate orders under Section

143 in exercise of itsinherent power. Reliance was placed by

this Court on Section 258 of the Code to empower the Trial

Courts to pass suitable orders.

Section 143 of the Act mandates that the provisions of

summary trial of the Code shall apply “as far as may be” to

trials of complaints under Section 138. Section 258 of the

Codeempowers the Magistrate to stop the proceedings at

any stage for reasons to be recorded in writing and

pronounce a judgment of acquittal in any summons case

instituted otherwise thanupon complaint. Section 258 of the

Code is not applicable to asummons case instituted on a

complaint. Therefore, Section 258 cannot come into play

in respect of the complaints filedunder Section 138 of the

Act. The judgment of this Court inMeters and

Instruments (supra) in so far as it conferred power on

the Trial Court to discharge an accused is not good law.

Support taken from the words “as far as may be”

inSection 143 of the Act is inappropriate.’’