- 1 - CRL.RP No.100303 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100303 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SMT. YASHAWANTIBAI @ YASHAVATI, W/O. MAHAVEER ANKALE, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS THROUGH WILL BEQUEATHED IN FAVOR OF SRI AJITKUMAR M. S/O. RATNAKUMAR M., AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: RAJATASHREE BUILDING, QADRI TEMPLE, NEW ROAD, MANGALURU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADV. FOR PETITIONER) AND: 1. SMT. VIDYA W/O. ANIL CHOUGULE, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: CTS NO.1112, ANANTH SHAYAN GALLI, BELAGAVI. 2. SRI ANIL DHARMARAO CHOUGULE, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: CTS NO.1112, ANANTH SHAYAN GALLI, BELAGAVI. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH MARKET POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, NOW REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, BENCH AT DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS - 2 - CRL.RP No.100303 of 2017 (BY SRI YASH NADAKARNI, ADV. FOR SRI VITTHAL S.TELI, ADV. FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2; SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.3) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF J.M.F.C.- II, BELAGAVI ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 302 OF CR.P.C. IN P.C.R.NO.169/2016, MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 302 OF CR.P.C., MARKET AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 29.11.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI) Petitioner, who is applicant before the trial Court is before this Court, challenging the impugned order passed the trial Court rejecting his application, seeking permission to continue the complaint. 2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that he is a close relative of complainant. She filed a private complaint dated 28.06.2016 under Section 200 Cr.P.C against respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 441, 463, 464, 467 and - 3 - CRL.RP No.100303 of 2017 468 of IPC. It was referred for investigation to the concerned police. A 'B' report was filed on 30.11.2016. The trial Court issued notice to the complainant. In the meanwhile, complainant died on 28.12.2016. Therefore, the petitioner filed application under Section 302 of Cr.P.C to permit him to prosecute the complaint. The trial court vide the impugned order has not only rejected the said application, but also accepted the ‘B’ report and close the complaint. 3. Complainant has executed a Will in favour of the petitioner and he got it registered on 16.03.2017. The Will is produced in RSA.No.5829/2011. Therefore, in order to prosecute the private complaint, it is not necessary for the petitioner to prove the Will. The trial Court has also erred in accepting the ‘B’ report. It has also committed error in holding that unless the petitioner secured decree from Civil Court, he has no right to prosecute the criminal complaint filed by original complainant and hence the petition. - 4 - CRL.RP No.100303 of 2017 4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 supported the impugned order. They would submit that applicant is not at all related to the deceased and the alleged Will is concocted. Unless and until the Will is proved, petitioner cannot come on record and therefore rightly the trial Court has rejected the application filed by him and accepted the ‘B’ report and prayed to dismiss this petition also. 5. In support of the petition, the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Rashida Kamaluddin Syed & Anr. Vs. Shaikh Saheblal Mardan (Dead) by LRs and Anr. (Rashida)1 (ii) Chand Devi Daga Vs. Manju K. Humatani (Chand Devi)2 6. Heard arguments and perused the record. 7. From the documents placed on record it is evident that complainant is the wife of one Mahaveer Ankale. Respondent No.2 Anil Dharmarao Chougule is the 1 2007 Crl.LJ 2306 2 AIR 2018 SC (Crl.) 45 - 5 - CRL.RP No.100303 of 2017 nephew of Mahaveer Ankale. Respondent No.1 is the wife of respondent No.2. It is contented by the respondents that since Mahaveer Ankale and the complainant have no issues, Mahaveer Ankale has executed a Will bequeathing all his properties in favour of respondent No.2. When he applied for probate, it was resisted by the complainant. Therefore, it was converted into O.S.No.100/2009. After trial, the said suit came to be decreed, upholding the contention of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the Will is genuine and they are the beneficiaries of the said Will. 8. Against the said judgment and decree complainant filed R.A.No.1001/2009, which came to be dismissed. Against the said judgment and decree, complainant has filed RSA.No.5829/2011 and secured stay. In the meanwhile, complainant filed complaint in PCR.No.169/2016 through General Power of Attorney holder on 28.06.2016. It was referred to the jurisdiction police for investigation. After conducting detailed investigation, the concerned police filed ‘B’ report on - 6 - CRL.RP No.100303 of 2017 15.09.2016. When the notice on the report was sent to the complainant, it came to light that she died on 28.12.2016. 9. In response to the said notice, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court and filed application under Section 302 Cr.P.C to permit him to continue the complaint, on the ground that he is a close relative of complainant and she has executed a Will dated 20.12.2013 in his favour and on the basis of it, he is entitled to continue the complaint. 10. At the outset it is relevant to note that the complainant has filed the complaint through her power of attorney holder by name, Rajendra Srikant Bhosagi. In the complaint, there is no reference to complainant having executed any Will in favour of the petitioner. Though the petitioner has stated that he is a close relative of deceased complainant, he has not stated in what way he is related to her. Moreover, based on the alleged Will, the petitioner has not secured any probate and therefore, the genuineness of the Will is yet to be proved. In the - 7 - CRL.RP No.100303 of 2017 circumstances, there is nothing on record to show that either the petitioner is related to the deceased complainant nor a beneficiary of Will executed by her. 11. In Rashida, the applicants were sons of the deceased and therefore there was justification for them to continue the criminal proceedings. Similarly, in Chanda Devi, also the person who sought to continue the criminal proceedings were legal heirs of the deceased. In the present case, the petitioner is not legal heir of the deceased. She wanted to come into picture on the basis of a Will executed by deceased. Unless and until he succeeded in establishing the said Will, he has no locus standi to come on record and prosecute the complaint. Therefore, the trial Court is justified in rejecting the application filed by him in accepting the 'B' report. This Court finds no justifiable grounds to interfere with the same. 12. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly the following: - 8 - CRL.RP No.100303 of 2017 ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioner is rejected. (ii) Send a copy of the order to the trial Court forthwith. SD/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR CT: UMD