- (1.) This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Rajeev Sharma, one time Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Station Road Branch, Najibabad, District Bijnor. At the time of filing this Application, the Applicant was posted as Branch Manager, Ossian Plaza Branch, Bank of Baroda, Sector 18, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar. By this Application, he has sought to quash the criminal complaint giving rise to Complaint Case no.1586 of 2003, Sri Krishna Gupta vs. Rajeev Sharma, and the summoning order dated 26.07.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Najibabad, District Bijnor in the aforesaid case, under Sections 218 and 219 IPC. The complaint and all proceedings arising from it, that are hereinafter referred to as the impugned proceedings, were brought by opposite party no.2, Sri Krishna Gupta. Sri Krishna Gupta is now no more.
(2.) A question arose as to what would be the fate of the impugned proceedings, the sole complainant being dead. This issue arose as the impugned proceedings arise out of a complaint, and not a case instituted on a police report. This Court before proceeding to hear the present Application, dealt with the issue vide order dated 05.02.2019, thus: "It is noticed that the issue about a person aggrieved being permitted to conduct the prosecution in the event the complainant were dead, is permissible under Section 302 Cr.P.C. The permission to conduct a prosecution can be granted to any person other than a police officer, below the rank of Inspector. The issue fell for consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chand Devi Daga and Ors., Vs. Manju K. Kumatini and Ors., (2018)1 SCC 71. In the said case, after consideration of the provisions of Section 256 Cr.P.C. and 302 Cr.P.C., their Lordship's were of opinion that the heirs of a deceased complainant are competent to prosecute a criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court, which in that case was a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C."
(3.) In view of the aforesaid position of law, this Court made vigorous efforts to reach out to the heirs of the deceased complainant, opposite party no.2. The Agency of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor was put to much strain for the purpose. It has come on record that the only legal heirs of the deceased complainant traced out are his grandson, Atul Gupta and his grandson's wife, Meena Gupta. The learned A.G.A. was required to enquire from the aforesaid heirs of the complainant if they were interested to pursue it. The learned A.G.A. sent a Memo no.3559, dated 25.02.2009 to the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor requiring him to find out whether the complainant's grandson was minded to pursue the complaint. Learned A.G.A. did not receive any response from the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor. Thus, on 29.03.2019, this Court was left with no alternative but to proceed with the hearing of this Application with the assistance of the learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State; judgment was reserved on 29.03.2019. It must also be placed on record that before the hearing this Application had come to be dismissed in default on 07.03.2005, and Misc. Restoration Application no.58005 of 2005 to recall the said order was made within seven days, on 14.03.2005. The said restoration application had not been allowed all along. It was allowed by an order of 29.03.2019, recorded on the restoration application separately, before the matter proceeded to hearing.;