Dismissed

Narendra Nath Mishra and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC23 Jan 2013CR. MISC./8856/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the trial court's order allowing the deceased complainant's wife to contest the case after 832 days. The High Court held that no limitation period exists for substituting a complainant, dismissed the petition, and affirmed the trial court's decision.

What did the court decide?

Petition was dismissed for lack of merit as no limitation exists for allowing substitution of complainant.

Narendra Nath Mishra and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8856 of 2012 (4) dt.23-01-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.8856 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== 1. Narendra Nath Mishra , Village & P.O. Gandhwar, P.S. Sakari, DistrictMadhubani at present Advocate, Patna High Court and residing in Bimla Tower, Flat No. 14A, Hanumannagar, New Punaichak, Patna-23.

¶4

1. Sunil Kumar Mishra, Village and P.O. Gandhwar, P.S. Sakari, DistrictMadhubani at present Manager of United Bank of India, Branch Belwa at Raxaul. .... .... Petitioners.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar.

¶7

Smt. Usha Sharma, wife of Late Anil Sharma, Managing Director of Vaishnavi Architeck & Engg. Pvt. Ltd. at present at and P.O.+P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, District-Patna.

¶8

.... .... Opposite Party. CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶9

4 23-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶10

counsel for the State.

¶11

This is a petition for quashing the order dated 10. 01. 2012, passed by Shri Amit Raj, Judicial Magistrate 1^St Class, Patna, allowed the wife of the complainant to contest the Complaint Case No. 552 (C) of 2007 on behalf of the husband who died on 12.08.2008 and filed petition on 25. 11. 2010 after lapse of about 832 days.

¶12

The trial court having taking into consideration the facts and circumstances allowed the wife of complainant to contest the complaint case on the ground that “it is the cardinal principle of law that criminal case does not abate as it is not a crime against an individual or a group of persons, but against the society at large.

¶13

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8856 of 2012 (4) dt.23-01-2013

¶14

Criminal justice system does not prohibit continuing with the prosecution by a kith and kin or a friend in case of death of the complainant”.

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner is that the trial court allowed the petition of the wife of complainant to prosecute the complaint after 832 days without any explanation or satisfaction to condone the delay.

¶16

The fact in narrow compass for determining the issue is that a complaint filed by the complainant. The said complaint, the processes were issued after taking cognizance for offence under Sections 420, 468 and 504 of I.P.C. The accused appeared on 29.03.2008. The complaint expired on 12. 08. 2008. The wife of the complainant filed a petition on 27.10.2010, to allow her to contest the case on behalf of her husband then the petition was allowed by the impugned order.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner however, contends that no reason or explanation has been given by the wife of the complainant for filing petition after lapse of delay in 832 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, relied upon several decisions for delay in filing the petition. However, none of the decision mentioned any time limit for substitution of the complainant or allowing to contest the complainant.

¶18

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8856 of 2012 (4) dt.23-01-2013

¶19

It is well settle that there is no period of limitation in law for allowing the next friend to prosecute the accused in case the complainant dies. When there is no limitation prescribe in law then there is no question of giving any explanation for delay in allowing the next friend to contest the complaint.

¶20

Having regard to the fact and contention there is no provision that case abate on the death of the complainant nor there limitation for allowing the next friend to prosecute the accused in place of a complainant. The Magistrate under Section 256 I.P.C. or 249 I.P.C. has jurisdiction to allow the next friend to prosecute the accused in place of complainant if he is satisfied with surrounding circumstance and material on record. This satisfaction has to be subjective satisfaction. There is no limitation for allowing the next friend to be substituted to prosecute in place of complainant, hence no explanation is required. I do not find any illegality or irregularity to interfere in the impugned order. Hence I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶21

m.p.

¶22

(Gopal Prasad, J)

Narendra Nath Mishra and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Nath Mishra and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lal Bahadur Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Atabul @ Md. Atabul @ Atabul Sah Vs The State Of Bihar

Sanjay Sah Vs The State Of Bihar

Rukmini Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ashwani Kumar Jha @ Ashvni Kumar Jha Vs The State Of Bihar

Dhiraj Choudhary Vs The State Of Bihar