2025:UHC:4475 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLA No. 30 of 2020 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Ankit Shah, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Mr. Tarun Lakhera, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The instant criminal appeal has been moved by the appellant-Naveen Kumar Garg, along with the application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2019, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist Dehradun in Complaint Case No.1662 of 2014, “Ashok Kumar Garg versus Ankit Nakara”, preferred under Section 138 N.I. Act. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the sole complainant, who was the father of the appellant, died on 16.08.2019 and on 28.09.2019 an application was moved on behalf of the present appellant for impleading him as the legal heir of the sole complainant, however, by ignoring this application, the complaint was rejected on 22.11.2019 by observing therein that no such application was moved for substituting the legal heir of the complainant. 5. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the present appellant is the son of the complainant, namely, Ashok Kumar Garg, and as such, he is legally entitled to be substituted in place of the complainant, for which he has already moved an application. 6. Be that as it may, for substantial justice, since the present appellant is admittedly the son of the complainant- Ashok Kumar Garg, who died in the year 2019, in such an eventuality, the proceeding should be decided on its own merit, since the legal heir comes forward to pursue the complaint. 7. On the other side Mr. Tarun Lakheda, 2025:UHC:4475 learned Brief Holder, has not disputed this fact that the appellant is the son of the complainant, however, he has raised an objection that since the order impugned does not reflect that the application was moved for substituting the appellant as the legal heir of the complainant, in such an eventuality, liberty may be given to the appellant to move a fresh application for substituting him as the legal heir of the complainant. 8. Since the submission, as advanced by Mr. Tarun Lakheda, learned Brief Holder, is really appreciable, the order impugned is set aside by giving liberty to the appellant to move a fresh application for substituting the appellant as a legal heir of the complainant and if such an application is moved, the trial Court shall decide the same in accordance with law and if such substitution application is allowed, then decide the proceeding on its own merit. 9. Subject to the aforesaid direction, as discussed above, the instant criminal appeal is allowed. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 03.06.2025 R.Bisht 2025:UHC:4475