Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. This Court had the occasion to consider Sections 256 and 302 in Balasaheb K. Thackeray v. Venkat [Balasaheb K. Thackeray v. Venkat, (2006) 5 SCC 530: (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 630]. In the above case complaint was filed under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC. A petition was of filed under Section 482 of the 1973 Code against the order of issue of process in the High Court, which was dismissed. SLP was filed in this Court in which notice was issued [Balasaheb K. Thackeray v. Venkat, SLP (Cri) No. 4367 of 2003, order dated 31-10-2003 (SC), wherein it rt was directed: "Issue notice. Mr Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, learned counsel, takes notice on behalf of Respondent 1 and seeks two weeks' time for filing the counter-affidavit. Time prayed for is granted. One week's time thereafter is granted for rejoinder-affidavit. Stay of further proceedings."] and during the pendency of the appeal, it was noted that the complainant had died. It was contended that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that the complainant is dead. This Court, in the above context, referred to Sections 256 and 302. This Court repelled the argument of the appellant that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that the complainant had died. The following was held in paras 3 to 6: (SCC pp. 531-32) "3. The learned counsel for the appellants, with reference to Section 256 of the Code, submitted that the complaint was to be dismissed on the ground of the death of the complainant. As noted above, the learned counsel for Respondent 1's legal heirs submitted that the legal heirs of the complainant shall file an application for permission to prosecute and, therefore, the complaint still survives consideration.