SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(SC) 266

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, S.M. SIKRI AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas, Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 1964, D/-10-10-1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. N. Keswani, Advocate, for Appellant; M/s. K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates (for No. 1) and M/s. K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri, Advocates (for No. 2), for Respondents.

Advocates:
K.L.Hathi, K.R.CHAUDHARY, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, N.N.KESHVANI, R.H.Dhebar

The death of the complainant does not necessarily lead to the abatement of the proceedings. The Court can allow the substitution of the complainant under S. 495 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - ABATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS - DEATH OF COMPLAINANT - EFFECT - SUBSTITUTION OF COMPLAINANT - POWER OF COURT - S. 198, 495, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Ashwin Nanubhat Vyas, was accused of offences under Ss. 417, 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed by Kusum Vithal Abhyankar, who alleged that Vyas went through a sham marriage with her and subsequently abandoned her and married another. Kusum died of a heart attack during the pendency of the trial. Her mother applied to the Court for substitution as a fit and proper complainant in the case.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the death of the complainant does not necessarily lead to the abatement of the proceedings. The Court relied on S. 495 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers Courts to authorise the conduct of prosecution by any person. The Court also noted that S. 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires a complaint to be made by the person aggrieved, is a bar that is removed once a proper complaint is filed.

Issues: Whether the death of the complainant leads to the abatement of the proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the death of the complainant does not necessarily lead to the abatement of the proceedings. The Court relied on S. 495 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers Courts to authorise the conduct of prosecution by any person. The Court also noted that S. 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires a complaint to be made by the person aggrieved, is a bar that is removed once a proper complaint is filed.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Presidency Magistrate allowing the mother of the complainant to continue the prosecution.

Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : In this appeal, by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay, August 25,1965 the appellant Ashwin Nanubhat Vyas is an accused before the Presidency Magistrate s 4th Court at Girgaon, Bombay. The case was started on the complaint under S. 198. Code of Criminal Procedure of one Kusum Vithal Abhyankar, who charged him with offences under Ss. 417, 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code. Kusum s complaint was that Vyas went through a sham marriage with her, before a person who posed as an Officer from the office of the Registrar for Marriages. Subsequently, Vyas abandoned her and married another. On being questioned Vyas told her (Kusum) that he had never married her, as the whole affair was a sham. Kusum alleged that she had become pregnant as a result of the cohabitation but in view of her serious heart ailment Vyas took her to a clinic where under medical advice and on certificate granted by Vyas an abortion was caused to save Kusum s life.

2. The complaint was filed on November 1, 1963 and Kusum was examined by the Presidency Magistrate. Vyas was then summoned to Court. On November 29, Kusum unfortunately died of a heart attack. Kusum s mother, who is the 2nd respondent in this appeal, then applied to the Court for substitution as a fit and proper complainant in the case. She expressed her willingness to act as a complainant and to continue the proceedings. This application was strongly resisted by Vyas who contended that the trial of offences under Ss. 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code was governed by S. 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and only the aggrieved person could be the complainant and on Kusum s death the complaint must be treated as abated. The Presidency Magistrate by his order, April 3, 1964, rejected the objection and decided to proceed with the complaint with Kusum s mother as the complainant. Vyas then filed an application for revision in the High Court at Bombay and by the judgment and order now impugned his petition for revision was rejected. The question that arises in this appeal is whether on the death of Kusum the proceedings ipso facto came to an end or could be continued in the manner ordered by the Presidency Magistrate.

3. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides only for the death of an accused or an appellant but does not expressly provide for the death of a complainant. The Code also does not provide for the abatement of inquiries and trials although it provides for the abatement of appeals on the death of the accused in appeals under Ss. 411-A (2) and 417 and on the death of an appellant in all appeals except an appeal from a sentence of fine. Therefore. what happens on the death of a complainant, in a case started on a complaint has to be inferred generally from the provisions of the Code. The Code by Chapter XV, which is to be found in Part VI (Proceedings in Prosecutions provide for the jurisdiction of criminal court in inquiries and trials). This Chapter is divided into two Parts - A (Place of inquiry or Trial) and B (Conditions requisite for initiation of Proceedings). Part B consists of Ss. 190 to 199-B. S. 190 lays down inter alia that any Presidency Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint of fact which constitutes such offence. Sections 195 to 199-B, however, place certain restrictions upon the power of the Chief Presidency Magistrate and other courts to take cognizance of cases. One such restriction is to be found in S. 198. It provides:

"198. Prosecution for breach of contract, defamation and offences against marriage.

No Court shall take cognizance of an offence falling under Chapter XIX or Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code or under Sections 493 to 496 (both inclusive) of the same Code, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by such offence:

Provided that, where the person so aggrieved is a woman who, according to the customs and manners of the country, ought not to he compelled










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top