A Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra has held that a criminal revision petition filed by a complainant or informant does not abate upon their death, ruling that the High Court has the discretion to allow a legal heir to pursue the proceedings as a “victim” to assist the court.
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against orders passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had held that a criminal revision proceeding abates upon the death of the revisionist (the original complainant) as there is no provision for substitution in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
Setting aside the High Court’s orders, the Supreme Court ruled that while strict rules of substitution do not apply to revision petitions, the proceedings do not automatically abate. The Court clarified that a legal heir, falling within the definition of a “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., may be permitted to assist the Revisional Court in discharging its statutory function.
Background of the Case
The case originated when the appellant’s father, Shamshad Ali, filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking the registration of an FIR against respondents 2 to 5. An FIR was subsequently registered, and a police report was submitted indicting the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
However, by an order dated March 7, 2020, the Court of XVIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, discharged the accused respondents from the offences under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 34 IPC, directing the trial to proceed only under Section 420 IPC.
Aggrieved by this discharge order, Shamshad Ali (the father) filed Criminal Revision No. 1986 of 2020 before the High Court. During the pendency of the revision, he passed away on May 5, 2021. His son, the appellant, filed an application (IA No. 19769 of 2021) to continue the proceedings.
The High Court rejected this application vide order dated February 21, 2024, holding that there is no provision for substitution in a Criminal Revision and, therefore, the revision would abate. A subsequent application for recall of this order was also dismissed on August 31, 2024.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellant’s Contentions: The appellant argued that he qualifies as a “victim” within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. and is entitled to continue the revision proceedings. Alternatively, it was submitted that a revision cannot abate. The counsel contended that once the Court entertains a revision, it is duty-bound to test the legality and propriety of the impugned order. Therefore, the High Court should have decided the matter on merits, allowing the appellant or an amicus curiae to assist the Court.
The Respondents’ Contentions: Respondents 2 to 5 argued that Section 394 of the Cr.P.C. specifically applies to the abatement of appeals, and there is no corresponding provision for the continuance of a revision by legal heirs. They contended that while a victim may file an appeal, they cannot be substituted as a revisionist in the absence of an enabling provision.
The State filed written submissions accepting the rights of a victim to participate in the criminal justice process.
Court’s Analysis
The Bench led by Justice Manoj Misra examined the concept of abatement and the nature of revisional jurisdiction. The Court distinguished between the abatement of a trial (which happens upon the death of an accused) and revisional proceedings.
On the Nature of Revisional Jurisdiction: Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Praban Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal (1959), the Court observed that revisional power is discretionary and exercised in aid of justice. The Court noted:
“Whether the High Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction depends upon the facts and circumstances of that case and once it entertains an application for revision and issues a Rule, that Rule has to be heard and determined in accordance with law, whether or not the petitioner is alive or dead.”
On Abatement of Revision: The Court held that since the strict rule of locus does not apply to revision proceedings, the law of abatement applicable to appeals does not apply to revisions, particularly when not filed by an accused.
“Where the revision is at the instance of an informant or a complainant, on his death, the proceedings will not abate and, therefore, revisional court may exercise its discretion and proceed to test the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the court subordinate to it.”
On Substitution and Victim’s Right to Assist: The Court acknowledged that there is no specific provision for substitution in the Code, and thus, no one can claim it as a right. However, the Court emphasized that there is also no provision for abatement of a revision.
“Hence, once a revision is entertained, in our view, the Court exercising revisional power has discretion to proceed with the revision… regardless of the death of the person who had invoked the revisional jurisdiction.”
The Bench further held that a victim is the “most suitable person” to assist the court in such scenarios:
“Therefore, when revisional powers are invoked by a victim of the crime, and he dies during pendency of the revision, other victims of that crime, who fall within the scope of its definition, as provided in Section 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C., may be allowed to assist the Court in effectively discharging its statutory function.”
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order dismissing the revision as abated was “unsustainable in law.”
The Court observed that the original revisionist had alleged that the accused set up a fabricated sale deed to claim his property. Since the appellant (the son) would inherit an interest in the property, the Court ruled:
“In our view, the appellant is a victim of the crime and, therefore, has vital interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Hence, in our view, the revisional court could have allowed him to assist the court in the capacity of a victim of the crime.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s orders, and restored Criminal Revision No. 1986 of 2020 to the file of the High Court. The appellant was granted liberty to assist the Revisional Court as a victim.
Case Details
Case Title: Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 5589-5590 of 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 1484
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra
