JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The complainant/appellant herein (for short "the complainant"), is, aggrieved by the verdict of dismissal, recorded, upon, Criminal Case No.000135/2014/97-III/2014, hence, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. 2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, had recorded, a verdict of dismissal, upon, the afore Criminal Case, upon, its assigning reasons, qua, (a) the dishonored negotiable instrument, being issued, vis-a-vis, the deceased husband, of complainant, and, (b) only her deceased husband being legally empowered, to, maintain the complaint. In addition thereto the further reasons, as, assigned by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, for, recording an order of dismissal, is, grooved (a), in, want of consent being meted rather by, the, other LRs, of, deceased Shobha Ram, vis-a-vis her, (b) and, in want of theirs constituting one Kiran Thakur, the complainant, as, their attorney, for, the relevant purpose. 3. Be that as it may, during, the pendency of the instant appeal, before this Court, the complainant filed an application, cast under the provisions of Section 391, of, the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherethrough she strives, for, leave being granted to her, for, placing on record, the testamentary disposition executed by her deceased husband Shobha Ram, wherethrough, she stands constituted, as, his sole legatee. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, contends, that the espoused relief, being not grantable, vis-a-vis, the complainant, as, the statutory latitude, for, maintaining the complaint, was, or remained vested only, in, the deceased, holder, of, the dishonroed negotiable instrument, as, borne in Ex.CW-1/B, and, after whose demise, it, not surviving, vis-a-vis, his LRs. 5. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the afore submission, does not coax this Court, to, accept it, (i) as, the apt provisions of Section 53 of the Negotiable instruments Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, purvey a statutory leverage, upon, a person deriving title, from, a holder in due course, of, a negotiable instrument, (ii) and also there within, all the rights vested in the apt holder, in due course, of the negotiable instrument, are alike therewith hence vested, in, the legatee, of the deceased holder, of, the negotiable instrument, (iii) and, when the afore Kiran Thakur, has, through the apposite testamentary disposition executed, in her favour, by her deceased husband, the original holder of Ex. CW-1/B, has hence therethrough, rather, acquired title vis-a-vis his estate, and, concomitantly also when she alike him, has, all the apt statutory right(s), thereupon, this Court, is, constrained, to, grant the espoused leave, vis-a-vis, the complainant. "Section 53: Holder deriving title from holder in due course-A holder of a negotiable instrument who derives title from a holder in due course has the rights thereon of that holder in due course." 6. Since the afore document, was, not existing, on, the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, and, also when hence, he did not appraise its evidentiary worth, nor, applied thereon, the applicable thereto hence other statutory provisions, (i) whereupon it would not be befitting for this Court, to, construe that the afore germane evidence, has been misappraised, or, has remained un-appreciated, nor also, it would be befitting for this Court, to suo motu, make any conclusion, vis-a-vis, the afore factum probandum, (ii) when hence, thereupon this Court would be untenably appropriating, to itself the judicial function, to be otherwise, performed by the Judicial Magistrate concerned. Consequently after allowing Cr.M.P No. 283 of 2019, and, also necessarily hence, after quashing the impugned order, for, enabling, the, hereinafter facilitation(s) vis-a-vis the remandee Court, this Court, makes an order of remand to the remandee Magistrate, to, after his ensuring, the, tendering, before it, of the testamentary disposition, executed by the deceased Shoba Ram, vis-a-vis, one Kiran Thakur, and, also after permitting the accused, to, adduce evidence in rebuttal thereto, to thereafter make a fresh decision, upon, the apposite complaint. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of, alongwith all pending applications. JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The complainant/appellant herein (for short "the complainant"), is, aggrieved by the verdict of dismissal, recorded, upon, Criminal Case No.000135/2014/97-III/2014, hence, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. 2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, had recorded, a verdict of dismissal, upon, the afore Criminal Case, upon, its assigning reasons, qua, (a) the dishonored negotiable instrument, being issued, vis-a-vis, the deceased husband, of complainant, and, (b) only her deceased husband being legally empowered, to, maintain the complaint. The learned Judicial Magistrate, had recorded, a verdict of dismissal, upon, the afore Criminal Case, upon, its assigning reasons, qua, (a) the dishonored negotiable instrument, being issued, vis-a-vis, the deceased husband, of complainant, and, (b) only her deceased husband being legally empowered, to, maintain the complaint. In addition thereto the further reasons, as, assigned by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, for, recording an order of dismissal, is, grooved (a), in, want of consent being meted rather by, the, other LRs, of, deceased Shobha Ram, vis-a-vis her, (b) and, in want of theirs constituting one Kiran Thakur, the complainant, as, their attorney, for, the relevant purpose. 3. Be that as it may, during, the pendency of the instant appeal, before this Court, the complainant filed an application, cast under the provisions of Section 391, of, the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherethrough she strives, for, leave being granted to her, for, placing on record, the testamentary disposition executed by her deceased husband Shobha Ram, wherethrough, she stands constituted, as, his sole legatee. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, contends, that the espoused relief, being not grantable, vis-a-vis, the complainant, as, the statutory latitude, for, maintaining the complaint, was, or remained vested only, in, the deceased, holder, of, the dishonroed negotiable instrument, as, borne in Ex.CW-1/B, and, after whose demise, it, not surviving, vis-a-vis, his LRs. 5. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the afore submission, does not coax this Court, to, accept it, (i) as, the apt provisions of Section 53 of the Negotiable instruments Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, purvey a statutory leverage, upon, a person deriving title, from, a holder in due course, of, a negotiable instrument, (ii) and also there within, all the rights vested in the apt holder, in due course, of the negotiable instrument, are alike therewith hence vested, in, the legatee, of the deceased holder, of, the negotiable instrument, (iii) and, when the afore Kiran Thakur, has, through the apposite testamentary disposition executed, in her favour, by her deceased husband, the original holder of Ex. CW-1/B, has hence therethrough, rather, acquired title vis-a-vis his estate, and, concomitantly also when she alike him, has, all the apt statutory right(s), thereupon, this Court, is, constrained, to, grant the espoused leave, vis-a-vis, the complainant. CW-1/B, has hence therethrough, rather, acquired title vis-a-vis his estate, and, concomitantly also when she alike him, has, all the apt statutory right(s), thereupon, this Court, is, constrained, to, grant the espoused leave, vis-a-vis, the complainant. "Section 53: Holder deriving title from holder in due course-A holder of a negotiable instrument who derives title from a holder in due course has the rights thereon of that holder in due course." 6. Since the afore document, was, not existing, on, the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, and, also when hence, he did not appraise its evidentiary worth, nor, applied thereon, the applicable thereto hence other statutory provisions, (i) whereupon it would not be befitting for this Court, to, construe that the afore germane evidence, has been misappraised, or, has remained un-appreciated, nor also, it would be befitting for this Court, to suo motu, make any conclusion, vis-a-vis, the afore factum probandum, (ii) when hence, thereupon this Court would be untenably appropriating, to itself the judicial function, to be otherwise, performed by the Judicial Magistrate concerned. Consequently after allowing Cr.M.P No. 283 of 2019, and, also necessarily hence, after quashing the impugned order, for, enabling, the, hereinafter facilitation(s) vis-a-vis the remandee Court, this Court, makes an order of remand to the remandee Magistrate, to, after his ensuring, the, tendering, before it, of the testamentary disposition, executed by the deceased Shoba Ram, vis-a-vis, one Kiran Thakur, and, also after permitting the accused, to, adduce evidence in rebuttal thereto, to thereafter make a fresh decision, upon, the apposite complaint. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of, alongwith all pending applications.