THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1765 OF 2003 ORDER: The accused alleging that his wife is the owner of a flat at Secunderabad, approached the complainant and offered the said flat for sale. The complainant agreed to purchase the said flat for a total consideration of Rs.3,10,000/- and in that context, an agreement of sale was also executed on 14.12.1999. An amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was received by the accused-the first respondent herein, and his wife as a part of sale consideration. Subsequently, the first respondent herein-accused and his wife expressed inability in getting the sale deed executed, and wanted to return the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and accordingly, the first respondent herein-accused issued five cheques and when the same were presented, they were returned with certain endorsements. Coming to know of the said fact, the petitioner after following the procedure provided for under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed a private complaint and the same was numbered as C.C.No.300 of 2000 X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secuderabad. During the pendency of the same, on 08.08.2002, as the complainant was absent and the process fee was not paid, the said complaint was dismissed by the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The said order is questioned in this Revision. This Revision was admitted by this Court on 10.02.2004. Though the notices to the first respondent herein were sent by the Court as well as personal notice was permitted to be taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same was not served. Hence, this Court on 28.01.2005, directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to take out substitute service by publishing the notice in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper of Secunderabad edition. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner produced the proof establishing the fact that the said notice to the respondent was published in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper of Secunderabad edition on 01.02.2005. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In my considered view, the Court below ought not to have dismissed the said complaint on the ground that the process fee was not paid. Of course, if the process fee is not paid, the Court below can definitely dismiss the complaint, but, however, a duty is cast upon it to look into the fact as to why the said process fee is not paid. Further, it is not as though the trial in the said case is in progress and the complainant was absent. When the process fee is not paid and the accused has not put in his appearance, the Court below ought to have acted liberally with regard to the absence of the complainant. In that view of the matter and as the amount involved in this case is Rs.1,50,000/-, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to establish his case. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order, dated 08.08.2002, passed in C.C.No.300 of 2000 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secuderabad, is hereby set aside and consequently, the said C.C. is restored to its file. The Court below is directed to decide the said C.C. on merits. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 28th October 2010 dr