Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Mr.Raval, learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Anil G. Shah versus Chitranjan Company and others, reported in 1998(1) GLR 303 in support of his submission that if the complainant dies, the proceedings do not abate and once cognizance of offence has been taken by the magistrate, trial will have its end after following due process and procedure as laid down in the code of criminal procedure and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the Negotiable Instruments Act laying down that on account of death of payee, trial must be abate and merely because original complainant payee has died, there could not be abatement of the proceedings and legal heirs of original complainant aare entitled to come forward and ask for their substitution in place of the complainant so as to proceed R/CR.A/1585/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2022 further with the trial. He has also relied upon the decision of co-ordinatae Bench of this Court (Coram : R.P. Dholaria, J.) in Criminal Appeal No2069 of 2018 dated 06/08/2019 wherein the co-ordinate bench reiterated the law laid down by this Court in the case of Anil G. Shah (supra).

8.2 As held by this Court in the case of Anil G. Shah versus Chitranjan Company and others (supra), relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant, once cognizance of offence has been taken by the magistrate, trial will have its end after following due process and procedure as laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the Negotiable Instruments Act laying down that on account of R/CR.A/1585/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2022 death of payee, trial must be abate and merely because original complainant payee has died, there could not be abatement of the proceedings and legal heirs of original complainant are entitled to come forward and ask for their substitution in place of the complainant so as to proceed further with the trial.

The aforesaid law laid down in the case of Anil G. Shah (supra) has been reiterated by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.2069 of 2018 in its judgement delivered on 06/08/2019.

From the aforesaid decision of this Court in the case of Anil G. Shah (supra) it is clear that once cognizance of offence has been taken by the magistrate, trial will have its end after following due process and procedure as laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the Negotiable Instruments Act laying down that on account of death of payee, trial must be abate and merely because original complainant payee has died, there could not be abatement of the proceedings and legal heirs of original complainant are entitled to come forward and ask for their substitution in place of the complainant so as to proceed further with the trial.

10. Thus, on perusal of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that the same is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand and section 256 has no application in the facts of the case on hand and the case relied upon by the appellant in the case of Anil G. Shah (supra) is squarely R/CR.A/1585/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2022 applicable wherein it has been held that once cognizance of offence has been taken by the magistrate, trial will have its end after following due process and procedure as laid down in the code of criminal procedure and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the Negotiable Instruments Act laying down that on account of death of payee, trial must be abate and merely because original complainant payee has died, there could not be abatement of the proceedings and legal heirs of original complainant are entitled to come forward and ask for their substitution in place of the complainant so as to proceed further with the trial.