Legal heirs of the deceased de-facto complainant, who are the victims, can be permitted to file a Naraji Petition, as they are recognized as aggrieved parties under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC and the amendments made by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008.

SHIB SADHAN SADHU, J.

1. In the instant Revisional Application petitioners have laid challenge to the order dated 20th June, 2014 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore in connection with CGR No.2817 of 2011 arising out of Gariahat P.S. Case No.303/11 dated 05.08.2011 under Sections 406/420/465/467/468/471/474/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore permitted the Opposite Parties herein to proceed with the case in place of the original de-facto complainant (since deceased) and has also permitted them to file Naraji Application (Protest Petition).

2. Mr. Somyapriya Chowdhury, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking for setting aside the impugned order dated 20th June, 2014 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore in CGR No.2817 of 2011 allowing the petition filed under Section 302 Cr. P.C. seeking permission to the de-facto complainant’s daughters to conduct the prosecution on behalf of the deceased de-facto complainant and also to file Naraji Petition.

3. He further contended that the Learned Magistrate has passed the order without considering the infirmities involved in this matter in respect of filing of Protest Petition by the O.P.s. He contended yet further that the right to file the Protest Petition is conferred only on the Informant who lodged the First Information Report and none else. The O.P.s. being the legal heirs of the Informant have no locus standi to file Protest Petition. At best, they can appear before the Learned Magistrate at the time of consideration of the final report and if they want to make any submission in regard to such report the Learned Magistrate is bound to hear them. Therefore, according to Mr. Chowdhury, the Learned Magistrate acted illegally by vesting the right of the de-facto complainant upon the Opposite Parties who are her legal heirs, to file the Naraji Petition. He concludingly submitted that the impugned order so far as it relates to filing the Naraji Petition by the Opposite Parties is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police & Another, AIR 1985 SC 1285 and Sanjay Bansal & Another vs. Jawaharlal Vats and Others, (2007) 13 SCC 71.

4. Mr. Danish Haque, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Learned Magistrate allowing the Opposite Parties to represent their deceased mother who was the de-facto complainant and to continue the prosecution by filing a Naraji Petition. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties filed a petition under Section 302 Cr. P.C. seeking permission to continue the prosecution by filing a Naraji Petition. He continued to contend that the Learned Magistrate was quite justified in allowing such petition otherwise it would have been a meaningless exercise only by permitting the Opposite Parties to continue with the prosecution without giving them also the permission to file the Naraji Petition since they are the worst victims of the fraud, cheating and forgery committed by the petitioners/accused upon their mother and thereby depriving them of their legitimate share in their paternal house. Mr. Haque also placed reliance on the very same decision relied on by his Learned Adversary e.g. AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1285 and yet on three more decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas vs. State of Maharashtra & Another, AIR 1967 SC 983, Jimmy Jahangir Madan vs. Bolly Cariyappa Hindly (D) by LRs. (2005) 1 C Cr. L.R. (SC) and Rashida Kamaluddin Syed & Another vs. Shaikh Saheblal Mardan (DEAD) through LRs. & Another, (2007) 2 SCC (Cri.) 63 in support of his contention.

5. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Learned Counsel appearing for the State, subscribe