Back
2004 Supreme(Pat) 977
PATNA HIGH COURT
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.
Bachi Devi
Versus
Yogendra Thakur
SLA No. 48 of 2003 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 16, 2004
The absence of provision for substitution in place of a deceased complainant and the relevance of Section 394 and Section 249 of the Cr PC influenced the court's decision to allow the heirs and relations of the deceased complainant to pursue the application under Section 378(4) of the Cr PC.
Headnote:
Substitution - Criminal Procedure - The court allowed the heirs and relations of a deceased complainant to pursue an application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, highlighting the absence of provision for substitution in place of a deceased complainant and the relevance of Section 394 and Section 249 of the Cr PC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought permission for heirs or related persons to pursue the complaint case following the death of the complainant, citing absence of provision for substitution in the Cr PC.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the heirs and relations of the deceased complainant to pursue the application under Section 378(4) of the Cr PC, emphasizing the absence of provision for abatement of a criminal case on account of the death of the complainant and the relevance of Section 394 and Section 249 of the Cr PC.
Issues: Permission for heirs or related persons to pursue a complaint case following the death of the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of provision for substitution in place of a deceased complainant and the relevance of Section 394 and Section 249 of the Cr PC influenced the court's decision to allow the heirs and relations of the deceased complainant to pursue the application under Section 378(4) of the Cr PC.
Final Decision: The court allowed the heirs and relations of the deceased complainant to pursue the application under Section 378(4) of the Cr PC.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Advocate appearing for the State in respect of IA (Cr) NO. 748 of 2004.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although there is no provision for substitution in place of a deceased complainant but in appropriate cases permission may be granted to heirs or related person to pursue the complaint case because there is no provision in the Cr PC providing for abatement of a criminal case on account of death of the complainant. Attention of the Court has been drawn to provisions of Section 394, Cr PC which provides for abatement of appeals. In that Section also an appeal under Section 378 which relates to a complaint case, shall not abate on the death of appellant which can only mean complainant. This application is under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave to appeal against a judgment and order of acquittal passed in favour of opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
3. Learned Government Advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has submitted that on account of absence of complainant in a complaint case the Court may discharge the accused but only in cases involving offences which are comparatively minor and which may be lawfully compoundable and are not cognizable offences.
4. In view of aforesaid discussion, the prayer made in IA (Cr) No. 748 of 2004 on behalf of heirs and relations of deceased complainant Bachi Devi to allow them to pursue this application under Section 378(4) of the Cr PC is allowed. No notice need be issued on the substituted parties as they have already entered appearance through vakalatnama filed by learned counsel for the original appellant.
5. Let this matter be now listed for admission.
