Facts
The petitioner-company filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that the respondent’s cheque for ₹5,67,338, issued towards amounts due for supplied goods, was dishonoured and remained unpaid despite statutory notice.
Source reference: p. 2–3The trial court issued process, but service remained pending. On 23 September 2025, it dismissed the complaint under Section 277 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, recording that process fees had not been paid.
Source reference: p. 3–4The petitioner sought revision, submitting that the fees had been deposited and that it should be allowed to pay them afresh and take steps to execute the pending warrant.
Source reference: p. 4Issues
Whether the dismissal of the complaint for non-payment of process fees should be set aside and the complaint restored.
Source reference: p. 4–5Whether the petitioner should be granted a further opportunity to pay process fees and take steps to secure the respondent’s presence.
Source reference: p. 4–6Law Applied
The trial court dismissed the complaint under Section 277 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Source reference: p. 4The High Court cited no precedent or detailed statutory test; it considered the petitioner’s submissions and the impugned order and determined that one final opportunity to pay the process fees and pursue execution of the warrant should be granted.
Source reference: p. 4–5Reasoning
The High Court noted the petitioner’s contention that the process fees had already been deposited, that the warrant remained pending, and that the Magistrate had dismissed the complaint without granting an opportunity to rectify the alleged defect.
Source reference: p. 4Having considered those submissions and the impugned order, it concluded that the petitioner should receive one last opportunity to pay the fees afresh and take the necessary steps for execution of the warrant.
Source reference: p. 5It directed restoration so the complaint could proceed in accordance with law, with appropriate steps to secure the accused’s presence.
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The High Court disposed of the revision at the admission stage, directed the petitioner to pay the process fees afresh and take the necessary steps for execution of the warrant within three weeks of receiving a certified copy, and directed the trial court to receive the fees and take steps to reissue the warrant in accordance with law.
It further directed that the complaint be restored to its original file and number and proceed in accordance with law; no costs were awarded.
Source reference: p. 5–6Acts & Sections Cited
3 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 18811
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232
Original Court PDF
M/s. Nook Micro Distribution Ltd.,vsVenkata Kasi Nooka Raju
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
