Discharge has the effect of acquittal - Legal heirs cannot prosecute a complaint dismissed under Section 245 CrPC
Bombay High Court Affirms Dismissal of Complaint: Legal Heirs Cannot Revive Under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. Once a Complaint is Dismissed for Default, Restoration by Legal Heirs is Impermissible; Remedy Lies in Appeal, Not Revision
In a significant judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench, Justice Kishore C. Sant addressed the legal intricacies surrounding the dismissal and attempted revival of a criminal complaint. The case, titled Nandkumar Wamanrao Mahajan v. Vilas Wamanrao Mahajan, revolved around a property dispute stemming from allegations of forgery and fraudulent documentation.
The court clarified that once a complaint is dismissed under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), it cannot be revived. This section pertains to the discharge of the accused when the Magistrate finds the charges to be groundless. The dismissal of the complaint in the present case equates to an acquittal, leaving the legal heirs of the deceased complainant without the option to restore the complaint unless a new one is filed or an appeal is lodged.
The background of the case involves a complaint initially filed by the deceased Wamanrao Mahajan, alleging forgery and fraudulent property acquisition against the accused, including his son. After Wamanrao's death, his legal heirs attempted to continue the prosecution, which led to a series of legal maneuvers, including revisions and writ petitions.
Justice Sant meticulously analyzed the provisions of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the appropriate remedy for the legal heirs would have been to appeal against the acquittal rather than seeking revision. The court observed that the procedural misstep of attempting to revive a dismissed complaint through revision was not sustainable.
The judgment also draws attention to the broader legal principle that legal heirs cannot automatically continue prosecution of a dismissed complaint unless expressly permitted by law. The court's decision reinforces the finality of a dismissal under Section 245(2) and the necessity for legal heirs to pursue alternative legal remedies.
The legal community views this judgment as an affirmation of established procedural rules and the emphasis on proper channels for appeals. It underscores the importance of adherence to statutory provisions and the limitations imposed on revising decisions that have attained finality.
The ruling has significant implications for cases where complaints are dismissed for default, reiterating the necessity for complainants and their legal heirs to follow the prescribed legal pathways for redress.
Bottom Line:
Once a complaint is dismissed under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C., it cannot be revived, and the subsequent application to restore the complaint is not maintainable. The discharge of the accused under Section 245(2) has the effect of acquittal, and the appropriate remedy would be an appeal, not revision.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 245(2), 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
