Summary
After a complaint and revision were dismissed, the complainant died while her challenge remained pending in the High Court. The Court upheld permission for her legal heirs to continue that criminal miscellaneous petition, rejecting the contention that death necessarily ended the proceeding.
Issues
- Whether the complainant’s legal heirs could continue the pending High Court challenge after her death.
- Whether the absence or death provisions required automatic termination.
Provisions considered
- Section256, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Even in summons trials, the proviso permits continuation in appropriate circumstances; death does not invariably require acquittal. (¶ 8–9)
- Section302, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Allows a Magistrate to permit an eligible person, including an heir, to conduct prosecution subject to the statutory permission requirements. (¶ 11–14)
Held
- Section256 concerns summons cases and did not govern the alleged warrant-case offences here. The Code contained no general rule requiring rejection of a warrant complaint merely on the complainant’s death; Section249’s discharge power was subject to its specified conditions. (¶ 8–9)
- Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas and the later authorities recognise permission for a relative or heir to continue prosecution after the complainant’s death. This concerns authorised continuation, rather than an automatic substitution entitlement dispensing with required permission. (¶ 10–14)
- The High Court committed no error in permitting the legal heirs to prosecute the pending criminal miscellaneous petition. The decision concerned that procedural permission and did not reverse the complaint’s dismissal on its merits or find the accused guilty. (¶¶ 7, 15)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court permission allowing the complainant’s legal heirs to continue the criminal miscellaneous petition upheld.