On the death of a complainant, the case does not necessarily abate, and the legal heirs of the complainant can continue the prosecution with the permission of the trial court.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 498A/406/323/307/506/34 IPC - Abatement of Case - Death of Complainant - Legal Heirs Can Continue Prosecution with Permission - Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas (Supra) - Jimmy Jahangir Madan Vs Bolly Cariyappa Hindley (Dead) (Supra) - Rashida Kamaluddin Syed & Anr. Vs. Shaikh Saheblal Mardan (Supra) - Balasaheb K. Thackeray & Anr. Vs. Shri Venkat @ Babru S/O. Wamanrao Deshpande Charthankar & Anr. (Supra).
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner's husband filed a revision application to quash proceedings under Sections 498A/406/323/307/506/34 IPC, alleging that the complainant had died by suicide and the case had abated.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the case did not abate upon the death of the complainant and that the legal heirs of the complainant could continue the prosecution with the permission of the trial court.
Issues: Whether the case abated upon the death of the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas, Jimmy Jahangir Madan, Rashida Kamaluddin Syed, and Balasaheb K. Thackeray, which held that a criminal complaint does not necessarily abate on the death of the complainant and that the legal heirs of the complainant can be allowed to continue the prosecution.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the revision application as infructuous and directed the trial court to consider any application by the legal heirs of the complainant to continue the prosecution in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - The revisional application is praying for quashing of the proceedings under Sections 498A/406/323/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitted in G.R. Case No. 993 of 2015 now being S/C No. 240/17 pending before the 2nd Additional Session Judge, Burdwan arising out of Burdwan Women Police Station case no. 61 dated 27.03.2015.

2. The petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the opposite party no. 2, petitioner no. 2 to 5 are the relatives of petitioner no. 1.

3. The Case under Sections 498A/406/323/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioners after she left her matrimonial home on 22nd September, 2014.

4. After about six months, the petitioner No.1 heard that the opposite party no. 2 had got married to one 'Rajib Rej' without dissolving her marriage with the petitioner no. 1.

5. On the prayer of the petitioner's Counsel Mr. Avishek Banerjee, a report was called for regarding the defacto complainant, which has been filed by Miss Rita Dutta Learned Counsel for the State.

6. In the Report dated 19.12.2022 as submitted by SI Ananya Saha of Women, P.S. Purba Bardhaman, it is stated that the defacto complainant Shampa Ghosh @ Shampa Rej has Committed Suicide and a specific case being Monteswar P.S. Case no. 75/2021 has been started under Sections 498A/306/34 IPC regarding her death against Rajib Rej (Second husband) and his mother Rita Rej by the deceased's father Santu Ghosh.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the defacto complainant (opposite party no. 2) herein is dead, the case filed by her against the petitioners cannot proceed as it has abated.

8. The Supreme Court in Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr., on 10 October, 1996, (1967 AIR 983), held that:-

'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 respect of 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.

9. The Code by Chapter XV, which is to be found in Part VI (Proceedings in Prosecutions), provides for the jurisdiction of a criminal court in inquiries and trials. This Chapter is divided into two Parts-A (Place of Inquiry of Trial) and B (Conditions requisite for initiation of Proceedings). Part B consists of as. 190 to 199B. Section 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 199B, 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 be compelled to appear in public, or where such person is under the age of eighteen years or is an idiot or lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf : Provided further that The complaint of Kusum was filed to remove the bar contained in this section although for the offence