ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The accused filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973['Cr.P.C.' for short] read with 401 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charge sheet filed in connection with the Case No.106/2017 dated 11.03.2017 under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On the aforesaid petition, the High Court directed the appellant to serve copy of the application upon the defacto-complainant/opposite party by speed post with acknowledgment due and to file an affidavit of service before the next date of hearing. 4. In pursuance to the above order, an affidavit of service was filed on 14.10.2020 clearly stating that the appellant has already served a copy of the application with a covering letter upon the opposite party on 14.10.2020 by speed post. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid affidavit of service, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with 401 Cr.P.C. came to be decided by the order impugned dated 28.09.2021 and the charge sheet was ordered to be quashed in the absence of the defacto-complainant. 6. In assailing the aforesaid order, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant who is another victim, is that the defacto-complainant was not served and a false affidavit of service was filed before the Court, thus, the order impugned is in violation of the principles of natural justice. In fact, the defacto-complainant had died on 12.04.2019 which fact is established by the death certificate dated 27.04.2019 of the defacto-complainant which states that the defacto complainant had died on 12.04.2019. 7. In view of the death certificate, as the defacto-complainant died on 12.04.2019, it is next to impossible to serve him through speed post on 14.10.2020 as stated in the affidavit of service. Moreover, the postal department under the RTI had clearly pointed out that the speed post addressed to the defacto-complainant was booked on 14.10.2020 and the same was returned to the sender with the remark "deceased". Despite the fact that the speed post was not delivered and was rather returned with the remark "deceased" to the complainant on 15.10.2020, the accused chose to file affidavit of service falsely stating that the service has been effected upon the complainant on 14.10.2020. Despite the fact that the speed post was not delivered and was rather returned with the remark "deceased" to the complainant on 15.10.2020, the accused chose to file affidavit of service falsely stating that the service has been effected upon the complainant on 14.10.2020. The aforesaid facts clearly reflect that a false affidavit of service was filed and the impugned order was obtained behind the back of the defacto-complainant who was specifically directed to be served with the copy of the application or without hearing the other victims. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.09.2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the High Court for reconsideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Since the defacto-complainant is no more, the Court will hear the other victims, i.e Shahbaz Anwar and Ershad Ahmad (not a party in this matter) . 9. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.