9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 357 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - acquittal of the accused - abatement of proceedings on death of the original complainant - complaint filed under section 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 138 read with section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - In the present case, cognizance has been taken by the court and summons was issued by the trial court against the accused and hence on death of the original complainant, the proceedings do not abate and legal heirs of original complainant are entitled to come forward and ask for their substitution in place of the complainant so as to proceed further with the trial. The case relied upon by the appellant in the case of Anil G. Shah 1997 (10) TMI 416 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT is squarely applicable wherein it has been held that once cognizance of offence has been taken by the magistrate, trial will have its end after following due process and procedure as laid down in the code of criminal procedure and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the Negotiable Instruments Act laying down that on account of death of payee, trial must be abate and merely because original complainant payee has died, there could not be abatement of the proceedings and legal heirs of original complainant are entitled to come forward and ask for their substitution in place of the complainant so as to proceed further with the trial. The impugned judgment and order is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court to decide and dispose of the matter after giving reasonable opportunities to the parties within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Substitution of the appellant as complainant upon the death of the original complainant. 2. Applicability of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the context of the death of the complainant. 3. Legal provisions regarding the abatement of proceedings upon the death of the complainant. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Substitution of the appellant as complainant upon the death of the original complainant: The appellant, son of the deceased complainant, filed an application to be substituted as the complainant in a case involving offenses under Sections 406, 420, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court rejected this application and acquitted the accused. The appellant argued that as the legal representative and power of attorney holder of the other heirs, he should be allowed to continue the complaint. The court referenced the case of Anil G. Shah versus Chitranjan Company, which established that the death of the complainant does not abate the proceedings and that legal heirs are entitled to substitution to continue the trial. 2. Applicability of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the context of the death of the complainant: The respondents contended that Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates acquittal upon the death of the complainant. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in S. Rama Krishna Vs. Rami Reddy, where the court upheld the acquittal due to the complainant's prolonged absence. However, the High Court distinguished this case, noting that in the present scenario, the appellant promptly sought substitution and there was no prolonged absence or lack of interest in prosecution. 3. Legal provisions regarding the abatement of proceedings upon the death of the complainant: The High Court reiterated the principle from Anil G. Shah's case that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Negotiable Instruments Act stipulating that proceedings must abate due to the complainant's death. The court emphasized that once cognizance of the offense is taken, the trial should continue to its end following due process, and legal heirs can be substituted to proceed with the trial. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the trial court's order, and remanded the matter back to the trial court with directions to decide the case within two months, ensuring all heirs of the deceased complainant are brought on record. The court underscored the need for all parties to cooperate for the early disposal of the case, given its long pendency since 1999.
|
