Death of complainant does not abate NI Act proceedings; legal heir may seek substitution and continue the complaint.

Once cognizance has been taken under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the death of the complainant does not by itself abate the proceedings, and the legal heir may seek substitution and continue the complaint. A dismissal for non-prosecution merely because the original complainant and counsel were absent after the complainant's death was therefore unsustainable. The Gujarat High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order and left it open to the heir and legal representative of the deceased complainant to apply for substitution before the trial court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint could be quashed for non-prosecution after the death of the original complainant, and whether the heir and legal representative could be permitted to continue the complaint by substitution.

Analysis: The complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act had been dismissed after the complainant died and neither the complainant nor counsel remained present. The Court applied the principle that once cognizance has been taken, the death of the payee or complainant does not by itself abate the proceedings, and the legal heirs are entitled to seek substitution and continue the case. The earlier dismissal for non-prosecution was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The impugned judgment and order were quashed and set aside, and liberty was reserved to the heir and legal representative of the deceased complainant to seek substitution before the trial court.

---