ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner – legal representative of the complainant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to permit her to prosecute the complaint in CC No.138 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam by restoring the complaint to file. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the husband of the petitioner filed a complaint against the 2nd respondent before the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’) as the 2nd respondent borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 15.10.2006 for the purpose of his business necessities and executed a promissory note on the even date agreeing to repay the same together with interest. In discharge of the said enforceable debt, the 2nd respondent issued a cheque on 25.07.2008 for Rs.10,00,000/- towards part satisfaction of the debt. The cheque issued by the 2nd respondent was dishonoured. As such, a notice was issued by the complainant and filed a complaint and the same was taken on file for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and numbered as CC No.138 of 2009. While the matter stood thus, the complainant died on 12.08.2011 due to ill health. The counsel representing the complainant filed a memo on 18.08.2011 intimating the Court about the death of the complainant and filed an application that the 2nd respondent paid the entire amount in view of the compromise and asked the Court to permit to withdraw the complaint as not pressed. Basing on which, the learned Magistrate passed a docket order dismissing the complaint as not pressed and acquitting the accused – 2nd respondent. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below passed the order without insisting the presence of the legal heirs of the complainant, if any. In fact, no compromise was arrived at between the deceased complainant and the 2nd respondent. But for obvious reasons, the counsel filed the memo with false allegation of compromise. The petitioner was the legal heir of the deceased complainant being his wife and entitled to prosecute the complaint. In fact, no compromise was arrived at between the deceased complainant and the 2nd respondent. But for obvious reasons, the counsel filed the memo with false allegation of compromise. The petitioner was the legal heir of the deceased complainant being his wife and entitled to prosecute the complaint. Taking advantage of the death of the complainant, the counsel colluded with the 2nd respondent and filed the memo without the knowledge of the petitioner, legal representative of the deceased complainant. If the factum of compromise was correct, the counsel would have stated for what amount the matter was compromised, how the said amount was paid etc. There was absolutely no compromise or any amount was paid. In the absence of any material in support of the alleged repayment, it was highly improbable to believe the version of the counsel. The counsel appeared to have colluded with the 2nd respondent and filed the application without informing the petitioner. The said order was passed due to misrepresentation of facts and fraud played by the 2nd respondent in collusion with the counsel for the deceased complainant and prayed to permit the petitioner to prosecute the complaint in CC No.138 of 2009 by restoring the complaint on file by recognizing her as the legal representative of the deceased complainant. 5. If the accused person in a cheque bounce case dies, the case gets over and the only remedy left with the complainant is to file a civil case against the legal heirs of the accused person (if it is within limitation) because criminal liability cannot be shifted to the legal heirs of the accused person. The case under Section 138 of the NI Act being criminal in nature, the liability of the accused cannot be shifted to the legal heirs of the accused. There is no specific provision in the NI Act to consider what happens to the case on the death of the complainant, hence, we have to fall back on the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under Chapter XX with the heading “Trial of summons cases by Magistrates” speaks about non appearance or death of complainant. The same is extracted for appreciation. “256. 6. Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under Chapter XX with the heading “Trial of summons cases by Magistrates” speaks about non appearance or death of complainant. The same is extracted for appreciation. “256. Non- appearance or death of complainant.--(1) If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day: Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. (2) The provisions of sub- section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non- appearance of the complainant is due to his death.” 7. Section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides for “permission to conduct prosecution”. The same is as follows: “302. Permission to conduct prosecution.--(1) Any Magistrate inquiring into or trying a case may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person other than a police officer below the rank of Inspector; but no person, other than the Advocate General or Government Advocate or a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, shall be entitled to do so without such permission: Provided that no police officer shall be permitted to conduct the prosecution if he has taken part in the investigation into the offence with respect to which the accused is being prosecuted. (2) Any person conducting the prosecution may do so personally or by a pleader.” 8. In Maddipatta Govindaiah Naidu And vs Yelakaluri Kamalamma And Another, 1984 Crl.L.J. (1) 326 A.P. the learned Single Judge of A.P. High Court held that criminal proceedings legally instituted do not terminate or abate merely on the death of the complainant. The cause of action for civil action bears no analogy to complaints of crime. 9. In Maddipatta Govindaiah Naidu And vs Yelakaluri Kamalamma And Another, 1984 Crl.L.J. (1) 326 A.P. the learned Single Judge of A.P. High Court held that criminal proceedings legally instituted do not terminate or abate merely on the death of the complainant. The cause of action for civil action bears no analogy to complaints of crime. 9. The Madras High Court in Ruby Leather Exports v. K. Venu, represented by Vandhana Chemicals, III 1994(1) 820 Madras held that the power of attorney agent can competently prosecute under Section 142-A of N.I.Act. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jimmy Jahangir Madan vs. Bolly Cariyappa Hindley (Dead) per LRs., 2002(2) ALLMR Journal 52 while answering the revision on the aspect whether the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. or under Section 142 of N.I.Act ipso facto terminate or abate upon the death of the complainant, answered that on the death of the complainant, his L.Rs., agents or power of attorney holders could be permitted to prosecute the complaint under Section 302(2) Cr.P.C. or under Section 142 of N.I.Act. An agent or a power of attorney holder of payee of cheque or holder in due course may be permitted to prosecute the complaint unless there is specific power in the Code for such person to lodge the complaint. But once, the complaint is filed by the aggrieved person, the prosecution can be conducted by the next person or persons named above. It is also held that no provision of law should be construed so as to defeat the parties to act on technicalities. It is desirable in a case of this nature for LRs of the deceased to come on record and prosecute the complaint in person, if possible. In the event of any disability, they may seek the permission of the Court to prosecute the said complaint through either agent or power of attorney. If such application is made, the Criminal Court will consider it on merits and pas appropriate orders as required under Section 302(2) of Cr.P.C. or under Section 142 of N.I. Act. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v. The State of Maharastra & Another, AIR 1967 SC 983 held that the Magistrate had the power to permit a relative to act as the complainant to continue the prosecution. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Chand Devi Dagaand Ors. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v. The State of Maharastra & Another, AIR 1967 SC 983 held that the Magistrate had the power to permit a relative to act as the complainant to continue the prosecution. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Chand Devi Dagaand Ors. v. Manju K. Humatani and Others, (2018) 1 SCC 71 held that the High Court did not commit any error in allowing the legal heirs of the deceased complainant to prosecute the criminal miscellaneous petition pending before it. 13. Considering the above citations and as the petitioner, legal representative of the complainant was stating that there was no compromise arrived at between the deceased complainant and the 2nd respondent and the counsel representing her husband filed memo with false allegation of compromise without her knowledge, it is considered fit to allow the petition permitting her to prosecute the complaint in C.C. No.138 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khammam by restoring the complaint on its file in the interest of justice. 14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed permitting the petitioner to prosecute the compliant in CC No.138 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam by restoring the complaint on its file. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.