Minakshi Saxena And 3 Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Prakhar Saran Srivastava, learned counsel for private respondent and Sri Subham Tandon, learned State Law Officer for State - respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue an order or direction to set aside the order dated 28.8.2025 (Annexure No. 1 to the petition), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS Act), Court No. 3, Pilibhit, in Criminal Revision No. 207 of 2023 (Sharad Chandra Saxena and others vs. Roli Saxena and another), as well as the order dated 3.7.2023 (Annexure No. 2 to the petition), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C./J.M., Pilibhit, District Pilibhit, in Case No. 907 of 2020 (Sarojwati vs. Sharad Chandra Saxena), under Section 506 IPC, Police Station?Sungadi, District Pilibhit. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of an appropriate order or direction quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 907 of 2020 (Sarojwati vs. Sharad Chandra Saxena), under Section 506 IPC, Police Station?Sungadi, District Pilibhit, pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C./J.M., Pilibhit, District Pilibhit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mother of respondent no. 1 lodged an FIR against the petitioner in Case Crime No. 0443 of 2019, under Sections 406 and 506 IPC, at Police Station?Sungadi, District Pilibhit. The case was investigated, and no evidence was found against the petitioner, whereupon a final report was submitted. Thereafter, the respondent appeared before the learned Trial Court in Case No. 907 of 2020 (Sarojwati Saxena vs. Sharad Chandra Saxena) and filed an application seeking permission to continue the proceedings as the legal heir of the deceased complainant, Sarojwati Saxena. She claimed herself to be the daughter of the complainant. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court by its order dated 3.7.2023. It was further submitted that a criminal revision against the order dated 3.7.2023 was preferred by the petitioner, and the same, being Criminal Revision No. 207 of 2023 (Sharad Saxena and others vs. Roli Saxena and others), was also dismissed on 28.8.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent no. 1 is the sister of the deceased complainant and has no right to continue the proceedings in place of the deceased complainant. It was thus submitted that both the impugned orders passed by the courts below are illegal and liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, Sri Shubham Tandon, learned State counsel, and Sri Prakhar Sharan Srivastava, learned counsel for the private respondent, submitted that an application was filed by the respondent claiming herself to be the daughter of the deceased complainant. It was further submitted that respondent no. 2 is the daughter of the deceased complainant, and there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the deceased complainant and respondent no. 2. It was also submitted that a daughter falls within the purview of a "victim," and a victim has every right to participate in criminal proceedings if the complainant dies during the pendency of such proceedings. It was further contended that a victim has the right to appear before the court and to file a protest petition. Lastly, it was submitted that permitting respondent no. 1 to continue the criminal proceedings after the death of the complainant does not suffer from any infirmity. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the private respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chand Devi Daga and Others vs. Manju K. Humatani and Others, (2018) 1 SCC 71.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is well settled that a victim has the right to continue criminal proceedings if the complainant/informant dies during their pendency. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the order allowing respondent no.1 to continue the proceedings in place of her deceased mother. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are upheld, and the petition is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

May 7, 2026

Mukesh