Process fees and unexecuted warrants: complaint dismissal was unsustainable, and fresh summons could not issue while the warrant remained in force.

A Magistrate cannot issue fresh summons while an earlier non-bailable warrant remains unexecuted and uncancelled, because the warrant continues in force until execution or cancellation under the Code; the fresh summons was therefore unauthorised. A complaint also cannot be dismissed under section 204(4) for non-payment of process fees where no such fee is legally payable: complaints by a public servant were exempt from complaint fees, and the Income-tax Officer was not liable to pay process fee in these circumstances. The dismissal order was unsustainable, the revision succeeded, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Magistrate could issue fresh summons when a non-bailable warrant already issued remained unexecuted and uncancelled. (ii) Whether dismissal of the complaint under section 204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was justified when process fees were not payable on a complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer.

Issue (i): Whether a Magistrate could issue fresh summons when a non-bailable warrant already issued remained unexecuted and uncancelled.

Analysis: Once a warrant is issued under the Code, it continues to remain operative until it is either cancelled by the issuing court or executed. Section 87 permits issuance of warrant in cases where summons may otherwise be issued, and section 70(2) makes the life of the warrant dependent only on cancellation or execution. As the earlier warrant was still pending and had not been cancelled, the court lacked authority to switch to fresh summons while that warrant continued in force.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioner and against the dismissal order.

Issue (ii): Whether dismissal of the complaint under section 204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was justified when process fees were not payable on a complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer.

Analysis: Section 204(4) permits dismissal only where process fees or other fees are lawfully payable and are not paid within a reasonable time. Rule 378 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, read with section 72(xiv) of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, exempts complaints by a public servant from complaint fees, and no process fee was therefore payable by the Income-tax Officer. In such circumstances, non-payment of batta could not attract section 204(4).

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioner and the dismissal under section 204(4) was held unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the dismissal order was set aside, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered by the trial court in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint cannot be dismissed for non-payment of process fees under section 204(4) when no such fee is legally payable, and a warrant issued by a criminal court remains effective until cancelled or executed.

---