Legal representative of deceased complainant is entitled to prosecute complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.

The appellant is the legal heir of the original complainant, who filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("N.I. Act").

Initially filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the case was transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts, per a 2009 administrative notification intended to distribute the workload to newly created civil courts.

On 13.08.2009, the trial court was informed that the complainant had died.

Consequently, the trial court dismissed the complaint for default and consigned the file to the record room.

The legal representative (Seema Swami) subsequently challenged this dismissal in the High Court.

Whether the trial court was legally justified in dismissing a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for default/non-prosecution solely due to the death of the original complainant.

Whether a legal representative of a deceased complainant is permitted to continue the prosecution under the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.").

The court primarily applied Section 302 of the Cr.P.C., which permits a legal representative or any person to conduct the prosecution with the court's permission.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents of *Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v. State of Maharashtra*, *Jimmy Jahangir Madan v. Bolly Cariyappa*, and *Rashida Kamaluddin Syed v. Shaikh Saheblal Mardan*, which collectively establish that a criminal complaint does not automatically abate upon the death of the complainant, and the court may allow a legal heir to substitute the deceased to continue the proceedings.

The High Court found that the trial court’s summary dismissal of the complaint on 13.08.2009 was erroneous.

The Court reasoned that Section 302 of the Cr.P.C. provides a mechanism for legal representatives to step into the shoes of the deceased complainant to ensure that the accused is not acquitted merely on a technicality resulting from the complainant's demise.

By dismissing the matter for "default" immediately upon learning of the death, the trial court failed to exercise its discretion to allow the legal heir to prosecute the case as envisioned by the N.I. Act and the Cr.P.C.

The Court holding that the trial court was wrong in dismissing the complaint for default, ordered the restoration of the complaint to the original file.

The matter was remanded to the trial court with directions to permit the legal representative to proceed and to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, given the case originated in 2009.