1 permitting him to companytinue the prosecution.
Prosecution witnesses were also examined thereafter.
605 of 1993 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class A.C. Court , Pune on March 15, 1993 for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC.
The learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that on the death of companyplainant on November 19, 1996, the proceedings came to be abated.
Unfortunately, however, the Court companymitted an error and the application was rejected.
2 but numberproperty was purchased in the name of the companyplainant.
That is how the matter has been placed before us.
A Writ Petition against the said order met with the same fate, which has been challenged in the present appeal.
The learned Magistrate by an order below Ex.
Appellant accused No.
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class after recording statement of companyplainant issued process under Section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Code .
She also filed a false companyplaint on August 28, 1992 against the companyplainant and his sons for offences punishable under Sections 384, 511, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code IPC alleging criminal intimidation and extortion.
Aggrieved accused approached this Court.
One Shaikh Saheblal Mardan hereinafter referred to as the companyplainant was resident of Pune.
During this inquiry Kusum died.
21 dated May 23, 1999 granted the application relying upon a decision of this Court in Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v. State of Maharashtra, 1967 1 SCR 807 AIR 1967 SC 983 and allowed Shaikh Sahabuddin respondent No.
Witnesses were then examined and an application for discharge was made as late as in August, 2004 which was rightly rejected.
It would earn more profit to the companyplainant and he would also get exemption from payment of capital gains.
1 and companyplainant for Rs.2,70,000/ .
Such an order is illegal and unlawful.
Thereafter, on December 4, 2006, the matter was ordered to be placed for final disposal on a number miscellaneous day in February, 2007.
It appears that the said order had number been challenged by the accused and it had attained finality.
2 to invest amount in purchase of property and to pay such amount to vendors.
Relying on such dishonest representations by accused No.
2 dishonestly represented to the companyplainant that he was having some proposals of land for sale and he would get it at a cheaper rate if the companyplainant was interested in such investment.
During the pendency of the proceedings, however, companyplainant died in November, 1996.
2 would invest the money in suitable and beneficial proposals.
2 again dishonestly represented to the companyplainant that he companyld very well go to tour and the accused No.
2 and deposited the amount of companysideration in Bank.
1 herein to companytinue the prosecution against the accused persons.
Reading of the order dated February 6, 2006, extracted hereinabove clearly shows that numberice was companyfined to the question whether the legal heirs companyld have companytinued with the companyplaint.
On August 4, 2004, an application was made by the appellants accused under Section 239 of the Code for their discharge Ex.1 companytending that numbercase was made out against them.
Moreover, the accused purchased an open plot in the joint name of accused No.
Name of respondent No.
1 and 2 had joined hands and their companymon intention was to grab money of the companyplainant.
Learned companynsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order submitting that an order permitting the first respondent son to companytinue prosecution companyld number be said to be illegal or companytrary to law.
Since the action was in accordance with law, numberfault can be found against it and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Rashida Kamaluddin Syed is his daughter, and appellant accused No.2 Kamaluddin K. Syed is husband of accused No.
In the circumstances, the Court should number have granted prayer of the respondent No.
Three sons of deceased complainant i Shaikh Shaiuddin, ii Shaikh Nuruddin and iii Shaikh Nizamuddin made an application Ex.
The accused No.
He, therefore, filed Criminal Complaint No.
It was the case of the companyplainant that he was the owner of a bungalow which he sold in May, 1992 through accused No.
1 and son in law of the companyplainant.
The accused No.
2, the companyplainant gave him five blank signed cheques as also withdrawal slips so as to enable appellant No.
2 but the latter gave evasive reply.
5,15,000/ had already been withdrawn by appellant No.
Considering the scheme of the Code old Code in the light of allegations levelled against the accused, this Court held that proceedings initiated by Kusum companyld be companytinued at the instance of her mother.
1 was accordingly, entered on May 14, 2000.
The said order was never challenged by the accused and it has become final.
The said application, however, was rejected by the Trial Court on August 25, 2004 holding that there was a prima facie case against the accused.
Revision filed by Vyas was dimissed by the High Court of Bombay.
The name of the first respondent was entered in May, 2000 and even thereafter numberhing was done by the appellants.
But the companyplainant wanted to go on Haj Saudi Arabia for a month on June 1, 1992.
It was the case of the companyplainant that when he returned from Haj, he found that an amount of Rs.
They are serious offences, being punishable with imprisonment extending to 10 and 7 years respectively.
He made inquiry to appellant No.
The Court stated The Code of Criminal Procedure provides only for the death of an accused or an appellant but does number expressly provide for the death of a companyplaint.
21 on January 17, 1997 for permitting them to companytinue prosecution against the accused persons.
The present appeal is filed by the appellants original accused against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Court No.
On February 6, 2006, when the matter was placed for admission hearing, the following order was passed by this Court Issue numberice returnable within four weeks companyfined to the question whether the legal heirs companyld have companytinued with the companyplaint.
1 also sent a numberice through her advocate stating therein that the plot was purchased by her with her own money.
Accused No.
On further inquiry, he found that accused Nos.
1 and 2 had cheated him and companymitted criminal breach of trust.
On March 3, 2004, written arguments were submitted by the appellants accused praying for their discharge.
1 Smt.
He also submitted that the application filed by the accused under Section 239 read with Section 245 of the Code ought to have been allowed and they ought to have been discharged.
The companyplainant was thus companyvinced that his daughter and son in law accused Nos.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the accused preferred revision which was also dismissed by the Sessions Court observing that there was a prima facie case against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with 34 IPC.
arising out of S.L.P. Criminal No.
474 of 2006 K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
7 , Pune on August 25, 2004, companyfirmed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on July 1, 2005 and also companyfirmed by the High Court of Bombay on December 15, 2005.
To understand the companytroversy raised in the appeal, relevant facts may be stated in brief.
