2019 (8) TMI 1811

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the cheque issued by the respondent accused came to be bounced. After filing of complaint, on 24.01.2016, the complainant died and thereafter, the order was passed on 22.03.2017 by the learned trial court recording a finding that neither the complainant nor his advocate remained present to proceed with the matter, further dismissing the complaint on that count for non-prosecution and acquitting the respondent accused. Thereafter, the son of the complainant - Jayantkumar Suryakant Amin presented this appeal before this Court which came to be admitted placing reliance upon the decision in Anil G. Shah vs. J. Chitranjan and Co. reported in 1998 (2) GLH 646. Paragraph 15 of the said decision reads as under:....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erely because the original complainant payee has died, there could not be abatement of the proceedings. The legal heirs of the 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. In the case of T. N. Jayarajan v. Jayarajan [1992] 3 Crimes 666; [1995] 82 Comp Cas 629 (Ker) this question of the death of the payee complainant and the consequences of the same has been considered and it has been held that the Magistrate can grant permission to the son of the deceased complainant to proceed with the complaint. The same view is also taken by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in Ashok Kumar v. Abdul Latif [1989] Cri. LJ 1856 and by the Andhra Pradesh....