Judgment :- Common Order: By way of these revision petitions, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore in C.C.Nos.724,725,778, 808, 410 of 1998 respectively is under challenge. 2. The above said calendar cases have been filed by the complainant M/s Lloyds Finance Limited represented by Thiru R.Ravikumar against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. All the above said calendar cases were dismissed under Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the complainant has failed to execute the non bailable warrant pending against the accused. 3. A reading of the order will go to show that the non bailable warrant was ordered against the accused, who were absconding from 1999 onwards. If the non bailable warrant was not executed, then, under no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the complainant is responsible for it. It is the duty of the police to execute the non bailable warrant pending against the accused. The complaint was not dismissed on the ground that the complainant has failed to pay the necessary process fee. Under Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C. only if the complainant has failed to pay the necessary process fee, the Magistrate is empowered to dismiss the complaint after giving a reasonable time for complying with the order. There is absolutely no materials placed on record to show that the complainant in the above said calendar cases has failed to pay the process fee. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that an opportunity must be given to the complainant. 3. In fine, Crl.R.C.Nos.818,819,820,821, and 824 of 2005 are allowed and the order passed in C.C.Nos.724,725,779,808, 410 of 1998 respectively are set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for directing concerned police to execute the non bailable warrant and after securing the accused , proceed with the case in accordance with law.