A KRISHNA REDDY Vs. SETTY PALLE NARAYANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision petition is directed against the orders passed in Crl M P No 320 of 1983 in C C No 19 of 1981 dated 19-9-1983 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Vayalapadu.

(2.) The facts are as follows : One A Savithramma preferred a complaint under Sec. 494 I P C against the respondents-accused. As the trial has gone half way, the complainant died on 9-1-1982 Thereupon, the deceased's minor daughter filed an application before the Court through a guardian for permitting her to continue the proceedings against the accused That was allowed. When a revision was preferred against that order, the High Court quashed it on the sole ground that the minor girl is only 7 years old and therefore she may not have the mental development necessary to prosecute the case. Then the brother of the deceased came forward with an application to permit him to continue the proceedings against the accused which was launched by his sister This was allowed. Against this order, the present revision is preferred.

(3.) The learned counsel for the accused submits that on the death of the original complainant, the case abates and there is no question of somebody coming on record and continuing the prosecution. This question was dealt with by my learned borther Justice Jayachandra Reddy in A. Krishna Raddy & Others vs. A Indravathi (1) (1983(2) (HC) APLJ page 4.) That is the matter in which tha minor daughter of the original complainant herei sought permission to continue the prosecution. In that judgment my learntd brother, while quoting the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aswin vs. State of Maharashtra (2) (A I R 1967 SC page 983) found it against the revision petitioner and held that the brother of the deceased can continue the prosecution . The Supreme Court in that decision observed that "When the proceedings are in progress the complainant dies, then proceedings should not be allowed to be stultified, and the Court in its discretion can allow prosecution to be continued by a relation of the deceased-complainant." In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, the lower court is right when it allowed the brother of the complainant to come on record to prosecute the case. I therefore dismiss this Revision Petition as devoid of merits.