Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 03-11-2017 in case of petitioner name Chand Devi Daga & Ors. vs Manju K. Humatani & Ors.
| |

Legal Heirs Allowed to Continue Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Ruling

The case of Chand Devi Daga & Ors. vs. Manju K. Humatani & Ors. is a landmark ruling on the rights of legal heirs to continue criminal proceedings initiated by a deceased complainant. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which allowed the legal representatives of the original complainant to continue pursuing the case. This ruling clarifies an important legal question regarding whether criminal proceedings abate upon the death of a complainant, especially in cases involving serious allegations such as forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy.

Background of the Case

The dispute began with a complaint filed by Smt. Chandra Narayan Das, whose legal representatives later became the respondents in the Supreme Court appeal. The complaint alleged offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:

  • Section 420 (Cheating)
  • Section 467 (Forgery of valuable security)
  • Section 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating)
  • Section 471 (Using as genuine a forged document)
  • Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy)
  • Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence)
  • Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention)

The allegations revolved around fraudulent transactions concerning a leased shop in the Bhilai Steel Plant, Chhattisgarh. The complainant’s husband had been the leaseholder of Shop No. 12 in the Civic Centre of Bhilai Steel Plant since 1959. After his death, legal heirs allegedly executed agreements in a manner that, according to the complainant, amounted to a criminal offence.

Lower Court Proceedings

The complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate on February 26, 2015, on the grounds that no prima facie case was made out under the alleged IPC sections. The complainant then filed a criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, which was also dismissed on November 20, 2015. This led the complainant to file a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court.

While the petition was pending, the complainant, Smt. Chandra Narayan Das, passed away on April 2, 2016. Her legal representatives sought to be substituted to continue pursuing the case. The appellants objected, arguing that criminal proceedings do not survive the death of the complainant.

High Court’s Decision

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled in favor of the legal heirs, allowing them to continue the proceedings. It held that there was no explicit provision in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) barring legal representatives from continuing a criminal case when the original complainant dies.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellants (accused) argued that:

  • The CrPC does not provide for the substitution of legal heirs in criminal proceedings.
  • Since the complaint was dismissed at the Magistrate level and the revision was also dismissed, the matter should not continue post the complainant’s death.
  • Criminal prosecution is personal in nature and should not be pursued after the complainant’s demise.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents (legal heirs of the complainant) contended that:

  • The allegations involved serious offences that affected the complainant’s estate and rights.
  • There is no provision in the CrPC that prevents legal representatives from continuing a criminal case.
  • The death of the complainant should not result in the accused escaping liability.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court, led by Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, examined the statutory provisions and relevant case laws. The key observations were:

  • Section 256 of the CrPC (Non-appearance or death of complainant) applies to summons cases and allows the Magistrate to dismiss a case if the complainant is absent. However, this section does not apply to warrant cases.
  • For warrant cases, there is no explicit provision stating that the complaint abates upon the complainant’s death.
  • The Court relied on Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas vs. State of Maharashtra, which held that legal heirs could continue the prosecution in certain cases.
  • Section 302 of the CrPC allows private persons to prosecute a case with the permission of the Magistrate. This provision supports the argument that a legal heir can continue the case.
  • The Court also referred to Balasaheb K. Thackeray vs. Venkat, where it was held that a private complainant’s legal heirs could continue prosecution.

The Supreme Court observed:

“The Magistrate under Section 249 has power to discharge a case where the complainant is absent. However, the discharge under Section 249 is hedged with the condition that ‘the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence.’ Had the CrPC intended that in case of the death of a complainant in a warrant case, the complaint must be dismissed, the provision would have indicated such an intention, which is clearly absent.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling and dismissed the appeal. It stated:

“The High Court did not commit any error in allowing the legal heirs of the complainant to prosecute the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the High Court. We do not find any error in the order of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed.”

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling sets an important precedent by affirming:

  • Legal heirs can continue criminal proceedings in cases involving serious offences.
  • Criminal complaints do not necessarily abate upon the death of the complainant.
  • Section 302 of the CrPC allows any person, including legal heirs, to conduct prosecution with the court’s permission.
  • The absence of explicit statutory prohibition allows the continuation of criminal complaints by successors.

The ruling strengthens the ability of legal heirs to seek justice even after the complainant’s demise, ensuring that accused persons do not evade accountability due to procedural loopholes.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Chand Devi Daga & Or vs Manju K. Humatani & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 03-11-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts