1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APELLATE JURICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1860 OF 2017

(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.4580 OF 2017)

CHAND DEVI DAGA & ORS.

... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

MANJU K. HUMATANI & ORS.

... RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the

High Court of Chhatisgarh allowing an IA filed by the legal

representatives of the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Petition.

The respondents aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated

02.02.2017 has filed this appeal. 

2.

The brief facts necessary for deciding this appeal are:

Smt. Chandra Narayan Das whose legal representatives are

the respondent Nos.1 to 7 had filed a complaint against the

appellants alleging offence under      Sections 420, 467, 468,

471, 120B, 201 and 34 IPC. The husband of Smt. Chandra Narayan

Das was a lease holder of a shop situated in the Civic Centre,

Bhilai Steel Plant, Chhatisgarh. Shop No.12 was allowed in the

name   of   the   husband   of   appellant   No.1   in   the   year   1959.

Digitally signed by

ASHWANI KUMAR

Date: 2017.11.03

17:27:46 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

Although,   husband   of   the   appellant   No.1,   a   Member   of

Parliament   had   died   in   1952   itself,   it   was   alleged   by   the

complainant that certain agreements were got executed by legal

heirs of Member of Parliament which constituted commission of

offence. The complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate vide

order   dated   26.02.2015   holding   that  prima   facie  case   under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B and 201/34 IPC is not made out

against the accused.

3.

Smt. Chandra Narayan Das filed a criminal revision before

the   Additional Sessions Judge, Durg which was dismissed by

VIIIth   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Durg   vide   judgment   dated

20.11.2015.   Criminal   Misc.   Petition   against   the   said   order

dated 20.11.2015 was filed in the High Court of Chhatisgarh by

Smt. Chandra Narayan Das. The High Court on 18.02.2016 issued

notice   in   the   Criminal   Misc.   Petition.   After   issuance   of

notice   the   petitioner,   Smt.   Chandra   Narayan   Das   died   on

02.04.2016. An application was filed by the legal heirs of

Smt. Chandra Narayan Das   praying them to be substituted in

place of the petitioner. The application was opposed by the

appellants.   The   High   Court   vide   its   order   dated   02.02.2017

allowed   the   said   application   and   permitted   the   legal

representatives of Smt. Chandra Narayan Das to come on record

for prosecuting the Criminal Misc. Petition. Aggrieved by the

3

said judgment, the appellants have come up in this appeal.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter referred to as

“Code   1973”)   there   is   no   provision   which   permits   legal

representatives   of   the   complainant   to   be   substituted   for

prosecuting the complaint. It is submitted that the present is

a case where no summons were issued to the appellants since

the complaint was rejected by the Magistrate and a criminal

revision challenging the said order has also been dismissed.

It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court   committed   error   in

permitting   the   legal   representatives   of   complainant   to   be

brought on record for prosecuting the case. 

5.

Learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   refuting   the

submission of the learned counsel for the appellants contends

that rejection  of complaint and order of the Sessions Judge

dismissing the criminal revision were under challenge before

the   High   Court   on   the   ground   that  prima   facie  offence  was

disclosed in the complaint and courts below committed error in

rejecting the complaint. The offence having been committed by

the   appellants,   the   High   Court   has   every   jurisdiction   to

permit the legal representatives to prosecute the matter in

the event of death of original complainant.  I