The legal heirs of a deceased complainant/victim have the substantive right to be substituted in an appeal against acquittal, as they fall within the statutory definition of 'victim' under the criminal procedure code, which prevails over the procedural limitation of automatic abatement.

ORDER :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. By way of filing the instant petition a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur by which the appeal submitted by the appellant-deceased-petitioner No.1 Smt. Shimla Sharma was dismissed as abated on account of her death.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos. 1/1 to 1/4 are legal heirs of the deceased-victim-Smt. Shimla Sharma, who filed a criminal complaint against the accused- respondents No. 2 to 4 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC alleging therein that her grandfather-Shri Govind Narayan was the khatedar of a land bearing Khasra No.102 measuring 1 Beegha 5 Bisva. After death of her grandfather in the year 1974, the petitioner No.1-Smt. Shimla Sharma’s father- Dhanna Lal Sharma, being Legal Representative of Govind Narayan was supposed to be the lawful owner of all his properties including the aforesaid land. However, at the time of death of her grandfather-Shri Govind Narayan, the accused-respondents in collusion with Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and the revenue officers opened mutation of the aforesaid land in their own name by demonstrating that grandfather of Smt. Shimla Sharma, i.e. Shri Govind Narayan passed away issueless, whereas in fact, father of Smt. Shimla Sharma, i.e. Shri Danna Lal Sharma was the son & legal representative/heir of the deceased-Shri Govind Narayan. Counsel submits that on the basis of the aforesaid incorrect & false information furnished by the accused-respondents, the mutation of the aforesaid land was opened in their name.

3. Counsel further submits that the complaint submitted by Smt. Shimla Sharma was sent for investigation to the Police Station Kanota, District Jaipur Rural, where upon FIR No. 22/2011 was registered and after investigation, the accused-respondents were charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.24, Bassi, Jaipur Metropolitan, where they faced trial but were ultimately acquitted vide judgement dated 20.12.2012. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, the complainant-Smt. Shimla Sharma submitted a Criminal Appeal before the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and during pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the complainant/appellant-Smt. Shimla Sharma passed away on 25.09.2013 and the learned Appellate Court has abated the aforesaid appeal, without taking the petitioner Nos. 1/1 to 1/4 on record even though they were legal representatives/heirs of the deceased-appellant-Smt. Shimla Sharma.

4. Counsel further submits that in view of the meaning prescribed to the word “victim” under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C, the petitioners No. 1/1 to 1/4 fall within the definition of victim, because the expression ‘victim’ includes his or her guardian or legal representative/heir. Therefore, the petitioners No. 1/1 to 1/4 were entitled to continue the appeal, submitted by the deceased- Smt. Shimla Sharma, and the impugned order dated 21.10.2013 should not have been passed. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

5. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed relianc