INDIRA Vs. SURGENT MAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram in Crl.M.P.No.3932 of 2000, dismissing the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners herein, to allow them to represent the deceased complainant, in CC No.164 of 1998, as complainant.

(2.) It may not be necessary for me to go into the facts of the case, since the point that is involved is only in relation to the substitution of the complainant, after his demise. The circumstances under which the said petition had been filed in the lower court by the petitioners are as follows:- a)One Mr.P.S.Subbiah had filed a complaint against the respondent for having committed offence punishable under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram in June 1998. The Magistrate had taken the sworn statement on 8.8.1998. Later he took cognizance of the said offence and numbered the case as CC No.164 of 1998. However it appears that the case did not proceed till 2000 and that on 12.2.2000, the complainant, P.S.Subbiah, expired. Hence a petition was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram by the petitioners herein, namely, Indira, Yamuna and Arumugam, stating that the first two petitioners Indira and Yamuna are the daughters and legal heirs of the deceased P.S.Subbiah and Arumugam is the husband of the third petitioner. Their further case is there are 2 other legal heirs, who are the sons of the deceased and as they are out of station, the petitioners 2 and 3 are filing the said petition and they further state that since they are women and could not come to the court often, they had given a joint power of attorney in the name of the Thiru. Arumugam, husband of the third petitioner therein, to represent the complainant in the court and prosecute the case. b)The respondent accused filed a counter stating that all the legal heirs have not given power to the fourth petitioner to represent the case and that the sons have not signed the power of attorney and consequently, the general power of attorney given to the said Arumugham is not a valid one and he has no right to represent or to get himself substituted as a complainant in the said case. The learned Magistrate accepting the contention of the respondent, dismissed the said application, against which, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge before me that the criminal case does not abate on the death of the complaint in a summons case.