Allahabad High Court
RASHIDversusRABBANI AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL
Holding
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant is deceased and no interested party is willing to prosecute the appeal.
Summary
The appellant Rashid appealed against the acquittal of the respondents in a criminal case where the trial court had found them not guilty under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal remained pending for more than forty years, during which the sole appellant died. Notices were sent to the legal heirs of the deceased appellant, but none appeared or expressed any intention to continue the appeal. The court noted that in a complaint case, especially an appeal against an acquittal, the proceeding cannot continue without the appellant or a person interested in prosecuting it. Given the inordinate delay and the absence of any party willing to pursue the matter, the court dismissed the appeal. The dismissal was ordered on the ground that the appeal could not be prosecuted further.
Issues considered
- Can an appeal against an order of acquittal be continued in the absence of the appellant or any interested party after a prolonged delay?
- Is the court empowered to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when the appellant has died and no heir wishes to pursue the case?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 323, 324, 504
Subjects
- criminal appeal
- acquittal
- procedural delay
- appellant death
- Indian Penal Code
- dismissal for want of prosecution
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2492 of 1984
Rashid
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Rabbani And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : A.N.Srivastava, R.C.Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Awadesh Narain Srivastava, Sharad
Srivastava, Subhash Singh Yadav
Court No. - 93
HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.
1. Case is called out in revised turn.
2. None is present on behalf of the appellant even in the revised call. Heard
Shri Sharad Srivastava and Shri Subhash Singh Yadav, learned counsel
appear for the respondents.
3. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 28.09.1983 passed by Shri M.H. Khan, Special Judicial
Magistrate, Ghazipur in Criminal Case No.666/1983 (Abdul Rashid Vs.
Gulam Rabbani), whereby the respondents had been acquitted under Section
147, 148, 323, 324, 504 of I.P.C.
4. The record reveals that the present appeal has remained pending before
this Court for more than four decades. During the pendency of the appeal,
the sole appellant, Rasid S/o Sri Khuda Buksha, expired. Consequently,
notices were issued to his legal heirs to ascertain whether they were willing
to prosecute the appeal further.
5. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the legal heirs of
the deceased appellant, nor has any application been moved indicating their
intention or will to pursue the matter. It appears that the legal heirs of the
deceased appellant, namely Rasid, are not interested in prosecuting the
appeal.
6. It is a settled principle of law that in a complaint case, particularly where
the appeal is directed against an order of acquittal, the matter cannot be
proceeded with in the absence of the appellant or any person interested in
CRLA No. 2492 of 1984
2
prosecuting the same. The continuation of such an appeal, especially after an
inordinate delay of more than forty years without any representation from
the appellant's side, would serve no useful purpose.
7. In view of the above circumstances, and in the absence of any prosecution
on behalf of the appellant, this Court is left with no other option but to
dismiss the appeal.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
April 15, 2026
Pravesh Mishra
(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…