MINAKSHI SAXENA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

     MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12039 of 2025

Minakshi Saxena And 3 Others
                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                             Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
                                                  .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Prasant    Rathor,         Sanjay
                                  Gangwar
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : G.A.,      Prakhar          Saran
                                  Srivastava

Court No. - 89
                 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

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
                                                     A227 No. 12039 of 2025
                           2


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
                                                                                           A227 No. 12039 of 2025
                                                                  3


                                        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.

                                        May 7, 2026
                                        Mukesh
                                                                                      (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad