Ashok Bhushan JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Chhatisgarh allowing an IA filed by the legal representatives of the Petitioner in Criminal Misc. Petition. The Respondents aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 02.02.2017 has filed this appeal.
2. The brief facts necessary for deciding this appeal are:
Smt. Chandra Narayan Das whose legal representatives are the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 had filed a complaint against the Appellants alleging offence Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 and 34 Indian Penal Code. The husband of Smt. Chandra Narayan Das was a lease holder of a shop situated in the Civic Centre, Bhilai Steel Plant, Chhatisgarh. Shop No. 12 was allowed in the name of the husband of Appellant No. 1 in the year 1959.
Although, husband of the Appellant No. 1, a Member of Parliament had died in 1952 itself, it was alleged by the complainant that certain agreements were got executed by legal heirs of Member of Parliament which constituted commission of offence. The complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate vide order dated 26.02.2015 holding that prima facie case Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B and 201/34 Indian Penal Code is not made out against the Accused.
3. Smt. Chandra Narayan Das filed a criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg which was dismissed by VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg vide judgment dated 20.11.2015. Criminal Misc. Petition against the said order dated 20.11.2015 was filed in the High Court of Chhatisgarh by Smt. Chandra Narayan Das. The High Court on 18.02.2016 issued notice in the Criminal Misc. Petition. After issuance of notice the Petitioner, Smt. Chandra Narayan Das died on 02.04.2016. An application was filed by the legal heirs of Smt. Chandra Narayan Das praying them to be substituted in place of the Petitioner. The application was opposed by the Appellants. The High Court vide its order dated 02.02.2017 allowed the said application and permitted the legal representatives of Smt. Chandra Narayan Das to come on record for prosecuting the Criminal Misc. Petition. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellants have come up in this appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Code 1973") there is no provision which permits legal representatives of the complainant to be substituted for prosecuting the complaint. It is submitted that the present is a case where no summons were issued to the Appellants since the complaint was rejected by the Magistrate and a criminal revision challenging the said order ........