Issue of process
Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with issue of process. 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, f The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(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 accom- panied 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.
Section 204, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 227 Issue of process Text carried over almost unchanged 94%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-5.pdf 2004-08-25. Crl A 2000. Once a magistrate has issued process under CrPC 204, the magistrate cannot recall or review that order; the accused's remedy is a 482 petition, not a recall application. Map crpc 204 and successor bnss 227.
On this section: s.204 issue of process: once the magistrate has issued summons/warrant, the magistrate cannot recall or review that order. The accused's remedy is a 482 petition (or revision), not a recall application before the same magistrate.
-
Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia vs Dwarkesh Diamonds PVT LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a Magistrate has examined a complaint, taken cognizance of an offence, and issued summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate cannot thereafter recall or review that order by invoking Section 201 Cr.P.C. (which applies only to cases where the Magistrate is initially not competent to take cognizance). Relief post-issuance of summons must be sought before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. Additionally, a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act is maintainable at any court having territorial jurisdiction over any location where any one of the five essential components of the offence (drawing, presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment within 15 days) occurred, and the complainant has discretion to choose such a court.
On this section: Governs issuance of summons when Magistrate finds sufficient ground for proceeding. Once summons issued, order becomes final and cannot be recalled under Section 201.
-
Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception in criminal procedure. The presumption of innocence, being a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, places the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt. Courts must exercise their discretion in granting or refusing bail judiciously, considering all relevant factors including the nature and gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the conduct of the accused during investigation, the delay in trial, and the likelihood of the accused absconding. Investigating agencies must comply with Section 41 and 41A of the CrPC by recording reasons for arrest and for not arresting. Non-compliance with these provisions entitles the accused to bail. Courts must act as guardians of liberty and ensure that personal liberty is protected in accordance with the procedure established by law.
On this section: Issue of process; discretion to issue summons or warrant
-
Balveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a Magistrate actively considers an application for cognizance, applies independent mind, and deliberately refuses cognizance of certain offences before committing case to Sessions Court, the Sessions Court can still take cognizance of those offences on a fresh application by the complainant, because: (1) Sessions Court is acting as court of original jurisdiction under Section 193 and cognizance taken by it is first cognizance for jurisdictional purposes; (2) The Magistrate's refusal order does not attain absolute finality that bars Sessions Court's revisional jurisdiction; (3) No valuable right accrues from such refusal order as it is not final adjudication on merits; and (4) Provided proper opportunity of hearing is given to the accused before Sessions Court takes such cognizance, the action is constitutionally valid. The distinction between Magistrate playing 'active role' (taking/refusing cognizance after hearing) versus 'passive role' (merely forwarding for commitment) becomes relevant when Magistrate has already actively decided against cognizance, but does not create an absolute bar.
On this section: Issuance of summons by Magistrate - relevant to how Magistrate proceeds after taking cognizance.
-
Priyanka Srivastava vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving Section 156(3) CrPC applications, particularly in commercial disputes and debt recovery matters where statutory alternative remedies exist under special statutes like SARFAESI Act and Recovery of Debts due to Banks Act, a Magistrate must exercise strict judicial application of mind before ordering investigation. The Magistrate must: (1) Consider allegations in their entirety and nature, (2) Evaluate whether allegations remotely disclose cognizable offence, (3) Assess whether forwarding to police is conducive to justice, (4) Note dates of incidents and any abnormal delays in reporting, (5) Conduct preliminary enquiry in commercial dispute categories to verify credibility, (6) Consider legislative protections afforded to secured creditors under special acts like Section 32 SARFAESI Act, (7) Be vigilant against abuse of Section 156(3) as tool for harassment and extracting settlements. Mere mechanical order 'as per application' without stated reasons is erroneous. Applications under Section 156(3) should be supported by sworn affidavit from applicant, making applicant accountable for false allegations under Section 191 IPC. FIR registration, while mandatory under Section 154 upon cognizable offence information, does not mandate investigation if preliminary enquiry reveals lack of credibility. Criminal proceedings cannot be used to pressure financial institutions into favorable settlements in debt disputes where statutory forums (DRT/DRAT) exist for resolution.
On this section: Issuance of process; Referenced as threshold after which accused entitled to participation in proceedings
-
Rajeswar Tiwari vs Nanda Kishore Roy
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an employer has made statutory deductions from an employee's salary in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Income Tax Act (Sections 192-206) and has properly deposited the deducted amounts to the credit of the employee or Central Government as required, allegations of illegal deduction do not disclose a case for criminal prosecution under Sections 406 or 120B IPC. Such disputes are essentially civil in nature and must be resolved through appropriate civil, administrative, or income tax authority channels, not through criminal prosecution. The High Court has an obligation under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of criminal process by quashing proceedings that convert civil disputes into criminal cases, particularly when statutory obligations have been performed and the dispute concerns the legitimacy or correctness of those actions rather than their performance itself.
On this section: Section 204 provides for issuance of summons after examination of witnesses and application of judicial mind that sufficient ground exists to proceed against accused. The court found the Magistrate failed to properly apply this test.
-
Poonam Chand Jain vs Fazru
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A second criminal complaint on substantially identical facts cannot be entertained after the first complaint has been dismissed on merits, unless exceptional circumstances exist. The exceptional circumstances are limited to: (a) previous order passed on incomplete record; (b) previous order passed on misunderstanding of nature of complaint; (c) previous order being manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish; or (d) new facts which could not with reasonable diligence have been brought on record in previous proceedings. The complainant cannot adduce some evidence before dismissal and then present more evidence through a second complaint. Suppression of material facts (such as earlier complaint and its dismissal) in filing second complaint strengthens the ground for rejection. The principle has been consistently held since Pramatha Nath Talukdar (1962) and is settled law applicable uniformly.
On this section: Section 204 provides that after enquiry, if Magistrate is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall issue process. This discretion must be exercised considering principles of law established by precedent.
-
Raghu Raj Singh Rousha vs Shivam Sundaram Promoters(p)l
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an order passed by a lower court in criminal proceedings is sought to be revised before the High Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the proposed order would prejudice the accused or any person, that person has a fundamental right to be heard before such order is passed, regardless of whether the proceedings are at the pre-cognizance or post-cognizance stage. The phrase 'accused or other person' in Section 401(2) CrPC encompasses anyone adversely affected by the High Court's decision, and the principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem) is applicable to all proceedings before the High Court, including criminal revision petitions at pre-summoning stages.
On this section: Issuance of process when sufficient ground for proceeding is found after inquiry
-
Rishipal vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant for commission of alleged offences under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 IPC constitutes pure abuse of process of law and warrants quashing of the complaint case, as the uncontroverted allegations do not prima facie establish any criminal offence - at most they disclose negligence or dereliction of official duty, not criminal conspiracy or cheating. The power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings must be exercised when a trained judicial mind concludes that continuation would lead to abuse of process and miscarriage of justice, even though such exercise is an exception rather than the rule. Courts must actively prevent vexatious complaints filed by frustrated litigants seeking to misuse criminal law as a tool to settle civil disputes and to harass innocent third parties.
On this section: Procedure for issuance of summons by magistrate after finding sufficient cause. Court noted summons were issued under this section against accused.
-
Rashida Kamaluddin Syed vs Shaikh Saheblal Maradn (d) Th. Lrs.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Upon the death of a complainant in a criminal case, the proceedings do not abate. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not expressly provide for abatement of inquiries and trials upon death of a complainant. Legal heirs of a deceased complainant can be validly permitted by the court to continue the criminal prosecution against the accused under Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 495 of the old Code). This principle applies to all criminal cases based on the scheme of the Code and is not limited to cases triable by the Court of Session or cases involving any particular level of offence. Once such permission is granted by the court and is not challenged by the accused, it attains finality and cannot be subsequently challenged as illegal or unlawful.
On this section: Issuance of process by Magistrate based on complaint - Applied to the initial complaint proceedings
-
Gangadhara Shastry vs State by Honnavara Police Station
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Proceedings against supplementary accused under Section 319 CrPC require more than prima facie case but short of conviction-level satisfaction. Mere professional advice by advocates or astrologers, family relationships, or general allegations of conspiracy without direct evidence of participation in the alleged extortion scheme do not constitute sufficient grounds to proceed against supplementary accused. Proceeding against such accused amounts to abuse of process of court and warrants quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. However, if during trial evidence surfaces against them meeting the Section 319 CrPC threshold, trial court may summon them.
On this section: Issuance of process if sufficient ground for proceeding
-
Bhola Ram vs Amrik Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a revisional court under Section 398 Cr.P.C. sets aside an order of discharge, it can only direct the trial court to make further enquiry into the case after giving notice to the discharged person. The revisional court cannot directly frame charges. After further enquiry, the trial court may either discharge the accused or frame charges for offences that may be prima facie made out upon the evidence on record, in accordance with Section 245 Cr.P.C.
On this section: Referenced in Section 398 regarding dismissal of complaints and discharge of accused persons.
-
PAWAN S/O GANGADHAR KULKARNI vs PRAKASH G SHETTY SINCE DECEASED R/BY HIS Lr. RAJESHWARI PRAKASH SHETTY
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When An Accused In A Criminal Trial Is Denied Reasonable Opportunity To Cross-Examine The Complainant's Witness And To Present Defence Evidence Due To Procedural Defects Such As Absence During Trial And Lack Of Proper Representation, The Conviction Passed By The Trial Court Violates Principles Of Natural Justice And Fair Trial, And The Appellate Court Must Set Aside The Conviction And Remand The Case For Fresh Trial From The Stage Of Cross-Examination To Ensure Compliance With Principles Of Natural Justice And Provide The Accused With A Fair Opportunity To Meet The Case Of The Prosecution.
On this section: Issuance Of Summons; Trial Court Issued Summons To The Accused Under This Section
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… State of Maharashtra <sup>1</sup>, wherein the <sup>1 2022</sup> SCC OnLine SC 1383 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the words "sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and the formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. It is …
-
… petitioner being wife of the aggrieved person or injured person or victim of a crime is competent to lodge complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; - b) Declare that the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court exercising jurisdiction under Sections 190, 200, 202, 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall not delegate his power to his ministerial staff as has been done in Ext.P4 complaint. - c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Aluva-II to accept Ext.P4 complaint and proceed with it …
-
… Dismissal of complaint under Section 204(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure is not an order of acquittal. Where a complaint is dismissed for non-payment of process fee, such an order cannot be treated as an order of acquittal. Legislature has not used the words acquittal in Section 204(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The word used in this section is dismissal of complaint. Dismissal of complaint for nonpayment of process fee will not amount to acquittal of the accused person and therefore application for leave to appeal or appeal under Section 378 (4) is not maintainable. Proper course for the …
Questions about Section 204
What have the courts held on Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (25 Aug 2004) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.204 issue of process: once the magistrate has issued summons/warrant, the magistrate cannot recall or review that order. The accused's remedy is a 482 petition (or revision), not a recall application before the same magistrate. Another 12 judgments on this section are set out below, 10 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 204, section 204 CRPC, section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 13 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (25 Aug 2004).
What should I read with Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 87 (Issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 227 (Issue of process), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 204, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.