The Supreme Court has ruled that legal heirs of deceased complainant can continue to prosecute the complaint..A Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan delivered the judgment in an appeal against a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court allowing the legal heirs of the deceased complainant to come on record to prosecute a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the deceased petitioner..By way of background, one Chandra Narayan Das had filed a complaint against the appellants alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 and 34 of IPC..The complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate who held that no prima facie case was made out. A criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge was also dismissed. She then filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition against that order in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The High Court issued notice in the same but the petitioner died soon thereafter..An application then came to be filed in the said matter by the legal heirs of the complainant praying that they be substituted in place of the petitioner..The High Court allowed the said application and permitted the legal heirs to come on record for prosecuting the criminal miscellaneous petition..This was challenged in Supreme Court..It was the appellants’ contention that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which permits legal representatives of the complainant to be substituted for prosecuting the complaint..The respondents submitted that the rejection of the complaint and the dismissal of criminal revision by the Sessions judge were under challenge before the High Court on the ground that prima facie offence was disclosed in the complaint. They argued that CrPC has no provision barring legal heirs from prosecuting a complaint on the death of the complainant..The Court, referring to Sections 256 and 302 of the CrPC held that.“even in case of trial of summons case, it is not necessary or mandatory that after the death of complainant, the complaint is to be rejected, in exercise of the power under proviso to Section 256(1), the Magistrate can proceed with the complaint, More so, the present is a case where offence was alleged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 1290B and 201 read with 34 IPC for which procedure for trial of summons case was not applicable and there is no provision in Chapter XIX “Trial cases by Magistrates” containing a provision that in the event of death of complainant, the complaint is to be rejected…..Had the 1973 Code intended that in case of death of complainant in a warrant case, the complaint is to be rejected, the provision would have indicated any such intention which is clearly absent.”.The Court also placed reliance on the cases of Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1967 SCC 983] and Balasaheb K Thackeray & Anr. v. Venkat @ Babru [(2006) 5 SCC 530] and upheld the decision of the High Court..Read the judgment below.
The Supreme Court has ruled that legal heirs of deceased complainant can continue to prosecute the complaint..A Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan delivered the judgment in an appeal against a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court allowing the legal heirs of the deceased complainant to come on record to prosecute a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the deceased petitioner..By way of background, one Chandra Narayan Das had filed a complaint against the appellants alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 and 34 of IPC..The complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate who held that no prima facie case was made out. A criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge was also dismissed. She then filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition against that order in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The High Court issued notice in the same but the petitioner died soon thereafter..An application then came to be filed in the said matter by the legal heirs of the complainant praying that they be substituted in place of the petitioner..The High Court allowed the said application and permitted the legal heirs to come on record for prosecuting the criminal miscellaneous petition..This was challenged in Supreme Court..It was the appellants’ contention that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which permits legal representatives of the complainant to be substituted for prosecuting the complaint..The respondents submitted that the rejection of the complaint and the dismissal of criminal revision by the Sessions judge were under challenge before the High Court on the ground that prima facie offence was disclosed in the complaint. They argued that CrPC has no provision barring legal heirs from prosecuting a complaint on the death of the complainant..The Court, referring to Sections 256 and 302 of the CrPC held that.“even in case of trial of summons case, it is not necessary or mandatory that after the death of complainant, the complaint is to be rejected, in exercise of the power under proviso to Section 256(1), the Magistrate can proceed with the complaint, More so, the present is a case where offence was alleged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 1290B and 201 read with 34 IPC for which procedure for trial of summons case was not applicable and there is no provision in Chapter XIX “Trial cases by Magistrates” containing a provision that in the event of death of complainant, the complaint is to be rejected…..Had the 1973 Code intended that in case of death of complainant in a warrant case, the complaint is to be rejected, the provision would have indicated any such intention which is clearly absent.”.The Court also placed reliance on the cases of Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1967 SCC 983] and Balasaheb K Thackeray & Anr. v. Venkat @ Babru [(2006) 5 SCC 530] and upheld the decision of the High Court..Read the judgment below.
![Legal heirs of deceased complainant can continue prosecuting the complaint, Supreme Court [Read judgment]](http://media.assettype.com/barandbench%2Fimport%2F2017%2F06%2Fak-sikri-and-ashok-bhushan.png?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
