1. In Neeta Bhalla case judgement, the SC has held that there must be "SPECIFIC" averment against the "SPECIFIC" accused for the offence under the N.I.Act, to fix Vicarious liability. AND vicarious liability is not deemed or presumed and has to be substaintiated against the "SPECIFIC" accused and NOT ANY OTHER PERSON, INCLUDING FRIENDS, RELATIONS, LEGAL HEIRS OR WHO-SO-EVER.
2. No averment = No allegation = No trial under the N.I.Act
However in the case of complaints against Corporates, the deceased accused chairman / mg.director / in-charge person may be substituted by a "duly appointed" "legal representative" of the company for representation in the Courts, SINCE CASES AGAINST A COMPANY NEVER GETS ABATED.
3. IF ABC makes an averment against XYZ in the complaint application and XYZ expires, the "SPECIFIC" averment against the "SPECIFIC" accused for the offence is MANDATORILY ABATED. Now the complaintant cannot amend the complaint application to include any other name (including legal heirs or who-so-ever)
4. IF such transfer of criminal cases / charges / allegations were transferable, THEN a murder charge can also be transferred to the Son if in case the accused father was to expire.
Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal