ORDER :

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.7.2015 passed by the learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 313 of 2013 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Complaint Case No. 110 of 2009 dated 2.7.2013 has been affirmed.

2. The facts of the present case are that a complaint case was filed by husband of the petitioner, namely, Ramnarayan Dewangan under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for registration of a complaint case for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 506B, 323, 379, 447, 452 and 454 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No. 1. Learned trial Court after examination of the complainant took cognizance of the matter and thereafter, process was issued to respondent No. 1.

3. During pendency of the complaint case, on 14.1.2012, the original complainant, namely, Ramnaran Dewangan expired and thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioner seeking permission to continue with the complaint case. Aforesaid application was rejected on 2.7.2013 by learned trial Court on the ground that there is no material to establish that the petitioner/wife of the deceased was co-complainant and she sustained any injury in the incident as alleged in the complaint case, therefore, no such permission can be granted. Thereafter, the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 16.7.2015 affirmed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Court below ought to have permitted the petitioner to continue with the prosecution after death of her husband according to the provisions of Section 302 and 256 of the Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chand Devi Daga and Others vs. Manju K. Humatani and Others, (2018) 1 SCC 71.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the Courts below have rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner as there was no averment to the effect that any injury was sustained by the petitioner in that incident.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

7. It is not disputed that the petitioner is wife of deceased/complainant. The complaint case was filed by original complainant on 23.10.2007 and after recording the statement of the complainant and his witnesses, process was issued to respondent No. 1.

8. During pendency of the complaint case, the original complainant died on 14.1.2012 and thereafter, an application was moved seeking permission to continue with the prosecution and the learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that no injury was sustained by the petitioner. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court have been affirmed by the learned Sessions Court in the revision preferred by the petitioner.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chand Devi Daga (supra) has held that in case of trial of summons case it is not necessary or mandatory that after death of complainant the complaint is to be rejected in exercise of the power under proviso to Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C. It is also observed that according to provisions of Section 302 of Cr.P.C. the permission to continue the legal heirs of deceased/complainant to prosecute the case can be granted. The relevant paragraphs No. 10 to 15 are reproduced herein-below:

“10. In this context a reference is made to judgment of this Court in Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SCC 983. In the said case this Court had the occasion to consider the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The complainant had filed a complaint against the appellants. The complaint was filed under Sections 498 and 496 IPC. The accused was summoned. However, during the pendency o