Legal heirs must comply with procedural requirements for substitution in criminal proceedings following the death of the original complainant.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. This instant application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the Impugned Order dated 18.05.2018 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bench-II of City Sessions Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 111 of 2017 arising out of an Order dated 04.02.2017 passed by the Learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in Case No. C/15865 of 2007 under Sections 417/418/419/420/465/469/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. By the said judgment, the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge dismissed the Criminal Revisional application and affirmed the order dated 4th February, 2017 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court at Calcutta. The Learned Magistrate vide order dated 4th February, 2017 rejected the prayer of the petitioners with a liberty to the petitioners to proceed with the case after complying with the provision as laid down in Section 256 read with Section 302 of the Cr.PC.

3. The brief facts, leading to filing of this Criminal Revisional application, are that one complaint case was initially filed by Sk. Ataul Haque through his Constituted Attorney, Sk. Sirajul Haque for commission of offences u/s 417/418/419/420/465/469/471 of IPC against Md. Jamil Ahmed, Opposite Party No. 2 herein before Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.

4. After considering the said petition of complaint, the Learned Magistrate took cognizance u/s 417/418/419/420/465/469/471 of IPC against Md. Jamil Ahmed and transferred the said case before Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta for inquiry, trial and disposal.

5. Thereafter, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court has made an inquiry under Section 200 of CrPC and upon considering S/A, a prima facie case found against the accused. A summon was issued against the accused/opposite party no. 2 herein. Thereafter, the accused appeared and obtained bail from the Learned Court. The matter was fixed for evidence.

6. In the meantime, due to old age about 80 years and serious health issue of Sk. Ataul Haque, an application u/s 410 of CrPC before Ld. C.M.M., Calcutta was filed praying for transferring the case to any other Court at the ground floor of the said building for his easy convenience for appearing in the Court. A notice was served upon the accused but he did not appear on the date of hearing. Therefore, the said petition was heard and the prayer was allowed vide order dated 30.08.2010 and directed to transfer the proceedings to Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Calcutta situated on the ground floor for disposal.

7. Soon after, the accused/opposite party no. 2 challenged the said impugned order dated 30.08.2010 after being dissatisfied before Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta by filing the Revisional Application being No. 307 of 2010 and the same was transferred to the then Ld. Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Calcutta for further hearing.

8. During pendency of the said revisional application, the original complainant, Sk. Ataul Haque expired on 30.01.2011 as such the present petitioners, as the legal heirs and successors of Sk. Ataul Haque (since deceased), executed combined power of attorney in favour of Sk. Sirajul Haque to conduct and represent the criminal case on their behalf.

9. On 30.06.2012, Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Calcutta, allowed the criminal revision filed by the accused. The order of Ld. C.M.M., Calcutta, in respect of transfer of the case record from Ld. 8th M. M.'s Court, Calcutta to Ld. 13th M.M.'s Court, Calcutta, was set aside. So, the said case was lying pending before the Ld. M.M. 8th Court, Calcutta for further trial and disposal.

10. Thereafter, Ld. M. M. 8th Court, Calcutta dropped the proceeding on 06.08.2012 and discharged the opposite party no. 2 in view of