Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Advocate appearing for the State in respect of IA (Cr) NO. 748 of 2004. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although there is no provision for substitution in place of a deceased complainant but in appropriate cases permission may be granted to heirs or related person to pursue the complaint case because there is no provision in the Cr PC providing for abatement of a criminal case on account of death of the complainant. Attention of the Court has been drawn to provisions of Section 394, Cr PC which provides for abatement of appeals. In that Section also an appeal under Section 378 which relates to a complaint case, shall not abate on the death of appellant which can only mean complainant. This application is under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave to appeal against a judgment and order of acquittal passed in favour of opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 3. Learned Government Advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has submitted that on account of absence of complainant in a complaint case the Court may discharge the accused but only in cases involving offences which are comparatively minor and which may be lawfully compoundable and are not cognizable offences. 4. In view of aforesaid discussion, the prayer made in IA (Cr) No. 748 of 2004 on behalf of heirs and relations of deceased complainant Bachi Devi to allow them to pursue this application under Section 378(4) of the Cr PC is allowed. No notice need be issued on the substituted parties as they have already entered appearance through vakalatnama filed by learned counsel for the original appellant. 5. Let this matter be now listed for admission.