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

2017 Supreme(SC) 1068

A.K.SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN
Chand Devi Daga – Appellant
Versus
Manju K. Humatani – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants :Garvesh Kabra, Ms. Pooja Kabra, Ms. Nikita Kabra Jaju, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Kaustubh Shukla, Deepayan Mandal, Rahul Shyam Bhandari, K. Tyagi, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

Ashok Bhushan, J.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Chhatisgarh allowing an IA filed by the legal representatives of the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Petition. The respondents aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 02.02.2017 has filed this appeal.

2. The brief facts necessary for deciding this appeal are: Smt. Chandra Narayan Das whose legal representatives are the respondent Nos.1 to 7 had filed a complaint against the appellants alleging offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 and 34 IPC. The husband of Smt. Chandra Narayan Das was a lease holder of a shop situated in the Civic Centre, Bhilai Steel Plant, Chhatisgarh. Shop No.12 was allowed in the name of the husband of appellant No.1 in the year 1959. Although, husband of the appellant No.1, a Member of Parliament had died in 1952 itself, it was alleged by the complainant that certain agreements were got executed by legal heirs of Member of Parliament which constituted commission of offence. The complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate vide order dated 26.02.2015 holding that prima facie case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B and 201/34 IPC is not made out against





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None of the cases provided in the list are identified as overruled, reversed, or bad law. The central case, *Chand Devi Daga v. Manju K. Humatani*, is consistently cited as an active, authoritative precedent.

**Category: Followed/Relied Upon (The Chand Devi Daga Precedent)**

The following cases treat *Chand Devi Daga & Ors. v. Manju K. Humatani (2018) 1 SCC 71* as valid, binding precedent. They cite it to interpret issues regarding the effect of the death of a complainant, Section 249 Cr.P.C., and the continuation of prosecution:

* **Jagdish Prasad Sharma VS State of Rajasthan - 2018 0 Supreme(Raj) 1338, Amit Kumar VS Firm Kapoorchand Bhagchand - 2018 0 Supreme(Raj) 572, Mridula Singh, W/o Chandra Prasad VS State of Bihar - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 252, Sumedh Singh Saini VS State Of Punjab - 2020 0 Supreme(P&H) 1696, Chintalapudi Thalluri Kavitha, Hyd VS P. P. , Hyd Ano - 2021 0 Supreme(Telangana) 369, Nanak Chand Gautam VS State of U. P. - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 698, Dhanraj N. Kochar VS State, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, CCB, EDF II, Team IX-A - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3748, Sanjit Kumar Mishra VS Ranjit Mishra - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 638, Kamta Dewangan W/o Late Ramnarayan Dewangan VS Gopika Dewangan W/o Kirtan Lal Dewangan - 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 348, BHUPEN BORO vs JAGAT KONWAR AND 4 ORS - 2024 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 7758, Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao vs State of Telangana - 2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 565, Khem Singh (D) Through Lrs VS State Of Uttaranchal (Now State Of Uttarakhand) & Another Etc. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1248:**

These entries consistently cite *Chand Devi Daga* to support legal contentions. Phrases such as "Reliance placed on," "Apex Court... held that," and "after discussing the case of" indicate that the decision is being followed or utilized as a basis for judicial reasoning.

**Category: Legal Principles established/cited**

* **Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas VS State Of Maharashtra - 1966 0 Supreme(SC) 266:** States the principle that the death of a complainant does not lead to abatement; this is the legal issue resolved by the *Chand Devi Daga* decision.

* **Balasaheb K. Thackeray VS Venkat @ Babru - 2006 5 Supreme 298:** Establishes the rule allowing an heir to continue prosecution via Section 302 Cr.P.C., which aligns with the application of *Chand Devi Daga*.

* **Jimmy Jahangir Madan VS Bolly Cariyappa Hindley (D) By Lrs. - 2004 8 Supreme 217:** Defines a limitation (power of attorney holder cannot file), providing specific guidance on the application of the broader principle established in the aforementioned cases.

None. The list provides clear evidence that *Chand Devi Daga v. Manju K. Humatani* is being actively applied by various courts to govern procedures involving the death of a complainant and the interpretation of Section 249 Cr.P.C.

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top