LexCHAND DEVI DAGA & ORS. versus MANJU K. HUMATANI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 923 CHAND DEVI DAGA & ORS. v. MANJU K. HUMATANI & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1860 of2017) A NOVEMBER 03, 2017 B [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] . Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Chapter XIX and XX - Death of complainant - Substitution of legal representatives of t~e complainant for prosecuting the complaint - Propriety of - Held: C There is no provision in Chapter XIX "Trial of warrant cases by Magistrates" that in the event of death of complainant, the complaint is to be rejected - The Magistrate u/s.249 has the power to discharge a case where the complainant is absent, however, discharge is hedged with a condition that "the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence" - Had the Code of 197J intended that D in case of death of complainant in a warrant case the complaint is . to be rejected, the provision would have indicated any such intention which is clearly absent - No error c~mmitted by High Court in allowing the legal heirs of the complainant to prosecute .in- Criminal Misc. Petition. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: Section 256 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 E is contained in Chapter XX with the heading 'Trial of summons- cases by Magistrates". Analogous provision to Section 256 of Code 1973 was contained in Section 247 of Criminal Procedure F Code, 1898. In Section 247 the proviso was added in 1955 saying that "where the Magistrate is of the opinion that personal attendance is not necessary, he may dispense with such attendance". The said proviso took out the rigour of the original rule arid whole thing was left to the discretion of the Court. Sub-section (1) of Section 256 contains the above G proviso in the similar manner. Thus, even in case of trial of summons-case it is not necessary or mandatory that after death of complainant the complaint is to be rejected, iri exercise of the power under proviso to Section 256(1), the Magistrate can 923 H 924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I 1 S.C.R. A proceed with the complaint. More so, the present is a case where offence was alleged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 1208 and 201 read with 34 IPC for which procedure for trial of summons- case was not applicable and there is no provision in Chapter XIX "Trial of warrant- cases by Magistrates" containing a provision B that in the event of death of complainant the complaint is to be rejected. The Magistrate under Section 249 has power to discharge a case where the complainant is absent. The discharge under Section 249, however, is hedged with condition "the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence". Had the Code 1973 intended that in case of death of C complainant in a warrant case the complaint is to be rejected, the provision would have indicated any such intention which is clearly absent. [Para 9) [927-C-F] Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1967 SCC 983 : [1967] SCR 807 ; BalasahebK. D Thackeray & Am: v. Venkat @ Babru (2006) 5 SCC 530 : [2006) 3 Suppl. SCR 301 ; Jimmy Jahangir Madan v. Bolly Caiyappa Hindley (dead) By Lrs. (2004) 12 SCC 509 : [2004) Suppl. SCR 955 - referred to~ E F G H Case Law Reference [1967) SCR 807 referred to [2006) 3 Suppl. SCR 301 . referred to [2004) 5 Suppl. SCR 955 referred to Para 10 Para 13 Para 14 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1860of2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2017 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in I.A. No.I of 2016 in Cr. M.P. No.216 of 2016. Garvesh Kabra, Mrs.Pooja Kabra, Ms.Nikita Kabra, Advs for the Appellants. Kaustubh Shukla, Rahul Shyam Bhandari, Deepayan Manda!, Konark Tyagi, Advs for the Respondents. CHAND DEVI DAGA & ORS. v. MANJU K. HUMATANI 925 &ORS. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. 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 02.02.20 I 7 ~~~~~ B 2. The brief facts necessary for deciding this appeal are: Smt. Chandra Narayan Das whose legal representatives are .the respondent Nos. I to 7 had filed a complaint against the appellants alleging offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, I20B, 201and34 IPC. The husband of Smt. Chandra Narayan Das was a lease holder of C a shop situated in the Civ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.