2015 (2) TMI 1385 - HC - Indian Laws

Heirs of the de-facto complainant can be allowed to continue the prosecution or not - who is the aggrieved person - HELD THAT - The de-facto complainant Madhurilata Bose, a 70 years old lady, wife of Late P.C.Bose used to reside at her husband's place at 78, Ballygunge Place, Kolkata-700019 since the year 1993. Her husband died in the year 1995. Even thereafter she lived there till the year 2003 along with her youngest daughter Sonali Rakshit (O.P. No. 3 herein). Between the period from 2003 to 2009 she lived with her eldest daughter Smt. Ratna Basu Roychowdhury (O.P. No. 2 herein). In the year 2009 her son Debasish Bose (Petitioner No. 1 herein) fraudulently and dishonestly induced her to believe that he intended to help her financially by inducting tenants in the ground floor of the said premises and he made her sign a few papers. She was then suffering from various ailments including vision problem and she was in dire need of money for treatment. In the year 2010 the petitioner No. 1 further represented to her that the said premises required renovation to fetch maximum rent from the tenants and asked her to stay with the O.P. No. 3 at Uttarpara. Believing such representation to be true she began to reside at Uttarpara with O.P. No. 3. Since then the petitioner No. 1 did not allow her to come back. During the end part of 2010 the petitioner No. 1 along with the petitioner No. 2 Smt Kalyani Biswas who is her second daughter, threatened her not to ever think of returning to the said premises and disclosed that it has been mutated in the name of petitioner No. 1. The question as to whether the heirs of the de-facto complainant can be allowed to continue the prosecution is no longer res integra as the same has been concluded by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the Leaned Counsels for the parties in JIMMY JAHANGIR MADAN VERSUS BOLLY CARIYAPPA HINDLEY (DEAD) BY LRS. 2004 (11) TMI 520 - SUPREME COURT . It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the injured person or relative of the deceased is entitled to appear before the Magistrate and can make his submission at the time of consideration of the report by the Magistrate. Thus the core question which falls for consideration now is as to whether the legal heirs of the deceased de-facto complainant who are the victims can be permitted to file Naraji Petition. It is evident that victim , who is the ultimate sufferer in the commission of a crime, has been given recognition as an aggrieved party by introducing the abovesaid amendment in Cr.P.C. There is no manner of doubt that right from the occurrence of the incident till the decision of trial, appeal or revision, till the highest Court of law, the victim is as much interested in the decision as is the accused or the State. In fact, the victim on account of being the injured person and the sufferer, deserves to be recognized as the most aggrieved party in a crime. It is a happy state of affairs that the stand of the victim are now vindicated in shape of amendment in the Cr.P.C. - It becomes clear as day that the law now recognizes importance of victim in a crime and also in all the subsequent proceedings contemplated by the Code, which take place right from lodging of an FIR till decision in appeal or revision. There are no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore allowing the petition filed the present Opposite Parties under Section 302 Cr.P.C. and by permitting them to file Naraji Petition, so as to warrant any interference by this Court - revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order permitting Opposite Parties to proceed with the case and file Naraji Application.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged the order allowing the Opposite Parties to proceed with the case and file a Naraji Application. The petitioners argued that only the informant has the right to file a Protest Petition, not the legal heirs. They cited relevant Supreme Court decisions to support their contention.

2. The Opposite Parties, on the other hand, defended the order, stating that they are entitled to represent their deceased mother, who was the de-facto complainant. They argued that allowing them to file the Naraji Petition was essential as they were the victims of the fraud committed by the accused. They also cited Supreme Court decisions to support their argument.

3. The State's counsel supported the Opposite Parties' right to file the Naraji Petition, emphasizing the importance of allowing victims to make submissions before the Magistrate.

4. The judge carefully considered the arguments presented by both sides and reviewed the relevant decisions cited. The judge then provided a detailed account of the facts leading to the case, highlighting the fraudulent inducement and subsequent legal actions taken by the deceased de-facto complainant and her legal heirs.

5. The judge discussed the legal concept of a "victim" introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, emphasizing the rights and recognition granted to victims in criminal proceedings. The judge explained the significance of the victim's role in the criminal justice system and the amendments made to protect their interests.

6. Considering the legal framework and the importance of victims in criminal proceedings, the judge concluded that the legal heirs of the deceased de-facto complainant, who were also the victims, were entitled to file the Naraji Petition. The judge dismissed the Revision, finding no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

7. The judge highlighted the evolving recognition of victims' rights in criminal cases and emphasized the victim's crucial role in various stages of the legal process. The judgment concluded by directing the Criminal Section to provide certified copies of the judgment to the parties involved.