The High Court granted leave to prefer an acquittal appeal. It set aside the trial Court's order dismissing the complaint for non-payment of process fee, directing the trial Court to first ascertain whether the summons was served.
Leave to appeal granted; order of trial court setting aside; case remanded for ascertaining service of summons.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.761 of 2018
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the petitioner : Shri Shobhit Mishra, Advocate For the respondent : None
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
Order On Board
14.9.2018.
1 . Heard on application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of CrPC.
3 . This acquittal appeal has been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against Order dated 12.02.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No.1849/2016 wherein the said Court dismissed the complaint of the appellant for non payment of process fee.
4 . The case was registered on 24.8.2016 and from the order sheet dated 24.11.2017 it appears that summon was issued to the respondent. From the order sheet of the trial Court it is not clear whether the summon issued on 24.11.17 for appearance of the
2
respondent on 12.02.2018 was served or not. The trial Court has not verified whether the summon is served or not. If the summon issued on 24.11.2017 was served on the respondent or service of summon is awaited on that date, it was not proper for the trial Court to dismiss the complaint for non payment of process fee. The trial Court should have ascertained the fact whether the summon was issued on 27.11.2017 to serve on the respondent or not. But that was not done. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is not sustainable and the same is hereby set aside.
5 . The trial Court is directed to ascertain whether the summon issued on the previous date is served or not or its service is awaited. If the summon is not served then the trial Court may direct for payment of process fee. The appellant shall appear before the trial Court on 02.11.2018 for further proceedings.
Sd/(Ram Prasanna Sharma) JUDGE
Bini
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial Court can dismiss a complaint for non-payment of process fee without ascertaining the status of the summon service.
Whether the order of the trial Court dismissing the complaint for non-payment of process fee is sustainable without verifying service of summons.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gravity Trexim Pvt. Ltd. Through Ku. Kavita Sharma
Sneh Enterprises Through Shri Rajkumar Mishra
Ram Prasanna Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
