Chapter XVI
Section 204 CrPC: Issue of process
New Law Update (2024)
Section 230 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Magistrate's Court
Punishment
Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be—
(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or
(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.
(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed.
(3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint.
(4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees 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.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of section 87.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 204(1) CrPC
This sub-section outlines the foundational power of a Magistrate to initiate criminal proceedings by issuing summons or warrants against an accused once they have taken cognizance of an offence and found sufficient grounds to proceed, distinguishing between summons and warrant cases.
Section 204(2) CrPC
This crucial sub-section imposes a mandatory condition that no summons or warrant can be issued against an accused until the prosecution has filed a list of its witnesses, ensuring transparency and preparation before the accused is compelled to appear.
Landmark Judgements
Mehmood Ul Rehman v. State of Rajasthan (2015):
The Supreme Court clarified that the Magistrate’s decision to issue process under Section 204 CrPC is not mechanical. It requires a diligent application of mind to the complaint and evidence to ascertain if ‘sufficient ground for proceeding’ exists, indicating a prima facie case against the accused.
M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra (2003):
This ruling reinforces that for issuing process, a Magistrate needs to be satisfied that a prima facie case is made out and there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The court should not embark upon a detailed scrutiny of evidence as if conducting a trial, but rather determine if the allegations, on their face, disclose an offence and implicate the accused.