AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Oldfield, J.—The petitioner asks us to revoke the Section granted by the District Court, Souh Arcot; for his prosecution for an offence
punishable u/s 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Section was originally refused by the District Munsif and was afterwards granted by the District
Court. During the pendency of the proceedings in the District Court the original applicant for the Section died and the application was continued by
his widow, as his legal representative; and she is here to support the District Court''s order.
The question, which it is necessary for us to decide, is whether a legal representative is in such circumstances entitled to continue an application
originally made by her predecessor in interest. The general rule is that any person whatever can institute a complaint of an offence other than certain
offences clearly specified in the Code, such as defamation. An offence u/s 193 I.P.C. is not one of those excepted offences. There would therefore
be no objec-. tion to an application for Section by the legal representative of a person directly affected, instead of that person himself; and that was
the basis of the order of the District Judge. That however takes no account of another principle of equally general application, that Criminal
Proceedings instituted by a private complainant abate on such person''s death. It is not necessary to give authority in support of that principle. We
may, however, point out that, when an exception is intended, as in the case of proceedings u/s 145. Criminal Procedure Code, such exception is
specified clearly. We have not been shown that an application for Section differs from other criminal proceedings. It is suggested that an
application for Section is merely preliminary to the making of a substantive complaint and that is true; but, at the same time, we must regard it as
part of a criminal proceedings, since there is no justification for holding that it is not an essential stage in one.
In these circumstances we cannot agree with the lower court that it was entitled to grant the Section to the legal representative of a petition
presented by that representative''s predecessor. We must therefore revoke the Section granted. We add only that it is no doubt open to the legal
representative herself to apply for Section if so advised; and we express no opinion as to the prospects of such application.