Can Legal Heirs Continue Criminal Proceedings After the Complainant’s Death?

Can Legal Heirs Continue Criminal Proceedings After the Complainant’s Death?

In a recent Supreme Court ruling in Chand Devi Daga & Ors. v. Manju K. Humatani & Ors., the court ruled on a crucial legal question: whether legal representatives can prosecute a criminal complaint if the initial complainant dies. The ruling relates to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) provisions and previous judicial precedents on the continuance of criminal proceedings in the event of the original complainant’s death.

Provisions and Principles Under the CrPC

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides the procedural framework for criminal trials. The relevant sections discussed in this case include:

Section 256: This section deals with the case of absence of the complainant in summons cases. It provides that the accused shall be acquitted by the Magistrate if the complainant is absent unless there are good reasons for adjourning the hearing or proceeding with the case ex parte. Further, sub-section (2) provides for acquittal if the absence of the complainant is due to death. This section is applied strictly to summons cases.

Section 302: Under this section, the Magistrate can enable a prosecution by anyone other than a police officer not below the rank of inspector. This provision allows the court to enable the continuance of a prosecution when the initial complainant is deceased through a legal heir or near relation. It remains in the jurisdiction of the court to allow for a replacement.

Section 249: This provision empowers the Magistrate to acquit the accused in warrant cases where the complainant does not appear, if the offense is compoundable or non-cognizable.

Key Judgments on the Topic

The Supreme Court, while deciding this case, cited a number of landmark judgments that determined the legal framework of the topic:

Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v. State of Maharashtra (1967): In this case, it was held that the complainant’s death does not of itself abate the proceedings. The legal representative or some other person may proceed with the prosecution, and the court may at its discretion allow such substitution under the corresponding provision of Section 302.

Jimmy Jahangir Madan v. Bolly Cariyappa Hindley (2004): The court in this case reestablished the ruling established in the case of Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas to the effect that the heirs of the aggrieved party are free to carry on the case under Section 302 of the CrPC. The court gave an affirmation that the legal representatives could carry the case forward with the aim of serving justice.

Balasaheb K. Thackeray & Anr. v. Venkat @ Babru (2006): This judgment touched upon Sections 256 and 302, reaffirming that a criminal complaint doesn’t necessarily end with the death of the complainant. The legal heirs may make an application to proceed with the prosecution with the concurrence of the court.

Fundamental Legal Issues Considered by the Court

The Supreme Court considered a number of key issues in its ruling:

Whether there is a provision under the CrPC expressively permitting continuation of a criminal complaint by legal heirs: The court observed that though the CrPC does not contain a specific provision for substituting the complainant, it also does not exclude the possibility of such continuation. With a construction of Sections 302 and 256, the court held that legal representatives could pursue the complaint in suitable cases.

Applicability of Sections 256 and 302 in varying categories of cases: The court drew a differentiation between warrant and summons cases. In the case of summons cases, Section 256 permits acquittal of the accused in the event of death of the complainant but simultaneously offers the versatility to proceed with the case as and when deemed fit. For warrant cases where the crime is more serious in nature, no such provision is available for default dismissal, making room for wide judicial discretion.

Judicial Discretion in Granting Substitution of Complainant: The court stressed that the judiciary can exercise discretion to allow legal heirs to continue prosecution in the spirit of justice. This practice seeks to bar the accused from taking advantage of the death of the complainant and see that heinous crimes are prosecuted appropriately. 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court judgment in Chand Devi Daga settles the legal position of continuing criminal complaints on the death of a complainant. It reiterates the judicial discretion to permit legal heirs to prosecute criminal proceedings, so that justice is not frustrated by technicalities of procedure. The judgment follows the principles enunciated in previous cases and demonstrates the elasticity in the CrPC to make such provisions without compromising the right to a fair trial.