[2025:RJ-JP:19312] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 523/2006 Mahendra Agarwal son of Late Shri Nagarmal Agarwal, Manager M/s Laxmi Industries, G-31, Phase II, Boranada Industrial Area, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through PP 2. Mukesh son of Gopi Ram 3. Sanjay son of Gopi Ram respondent Nos.2 and 3 are residents of Mandi Khairthal, Firm Ramchandra Gopiram, Mandi Khairthal, Tehsil Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sahil Khan, Adv. Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP Mr. Keshav Kumar Parashar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 07/05/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the substitution order dated 03.05.2006 passed by the learned trial Court whereby respondent Nos.2 and 3 were substituted in place of the deceased complainant for further pursuing the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Heard and perused the material available on record. 3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Chand Devi Daga & Ors. vs. Manju K. Humatani & Ors., 2018 (1) SCC 71, held that in case of the death of the complainant during the proceeding, the legal heirs of the deceased can continue with the [2025:RJ-JP:19312] (2 of 2) [CRLR-523/2006] prosecution. The provision contained under Section 256(2) of Cr.P.C., specifically provides that where non-appearance of the complainant was on account of his death the proceedings can be continued by his legal heirs. 4. The provisions contained under Section 256(2) of Cr.P.C. shall apply in the present case as the complaint was filed by deceased Gopi Ram against the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and during the course of the proceedings, the complainant died. The statement of the complainant was recorded, thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner for dismissing the complaint on account of complainant’s death, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court, and allowed the application filed by the complainant who was represented by his counsel for substituting respondent No.2 and 3 in place of complainant. 5. In light of the aforementioned law, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Court below. Accordingly, the instant revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 03.05.2006, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-8