Criminal Revision Filed By Informant Doesn't Abate On His Death; Other Victims Can Continue It : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal revision petition does not automatically abate upon the death of the revisionist, particularly when the revision is not filed by an accused but by an informant or victim. The Court clarified that in such cases, the revisional court has the discretion to continue examining the legality and propriety of the impugned order and may permit a victim to assist the court in furtherance of justice.

A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra set aside two orders passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which had dismissed a criminal revision as abated following the death of the original informant and had also rejected an application by his son seeking to continue the proceedings.

Background

The case arose from a property dispute in which Shamshad Ali, the father of the appellant Syed Shahnawaz Ali, had moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking registration of an FIR alleging forgery, cheating and conspiracy. Following investigation, the police filed a chargesheet for multiple offences under the IPC. However, in March 2020, a sessions court discharged the accused of all offences except cheating under Section 420 IPC.

Aggrieved, the informant filed a criminal revision before the High Court. During the pendency of the revision, the informant died in May 2021. His son then sought permission to continue the revision proceedings. The High Court rejected the request, holding that there was no provision for substitution in criminal revisions and that the revision had abated. A subsequent recall application was also dismissed.

Supreme Court's Analysis

Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the concept of abatement in criminal proceedings and the nature of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.

The Court reiterated that unlike appeals, where abatement is expressly governed by Section 394 CrPC, there is no statutory provision providing for abatement of criminal revisions. Revisional jurisdiction, the Court noted, is discretionary in nature and is exercised to supervise the administration of criminal justice and to correct illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error.

"Since strict rule of locus does not apply to a revision proceeding, on death of a revisionist, the law of abatement that applies to an appeal does not apply to a revision proceeding, more particularly when revision is not at the instance of an accused."

Relying on earlier Constitution Bench and subsequent precedents, such as Honnaiah T.H. Vs. State of Karnataka & Others, the Court held that once a revision is entertained, the High Court is ordinarily required to decide it on merits, regardless of whether the person who invoked the jurisdiction is alive, as long as the main proceedings survive.

Role Of Victim In Revision Proceedings

The Bench emphasised that while no one has a vested right to claim substitution as a revisionist, the revisional court has ample discretion to allow a suitable person to assist it. To prevent abuse of revisional jurisdiction by strangers with no legitimate interest, the Court held that the statutory definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC can serve as a guiding principle.

"Though the strict rule of locus may not apply for invocation of that power, the court must be circumspect in entertaining petitions at the behest of complete strangers to the dispute, otherwise the discretionary power may become a tool in the hands of those who, though have suffered no injury, have an axe to grind. Therefore, in our view, to ensure that revisional power is not abused by those who have an axe to grind, the definition of a victim, contained in Section 2(wa) of the Code, may be used as a guide to determine whether a revision should be entertained at the instance of the person who has invoked the revisional power."

When can revision be held to have abated

The Court explained the situations where a revision is held to have abated :

"However, where the revision is at the instance of an accused/convict, the revisional court may refuse to continue the proceedings on his death, inter alia, where (a) the revisional proceeding emanates from an order passed during trial; or (b) the revisional proceeding is against an order of conviction, or affirmance of conviction. In situation (a) (supra), on death of accused the trial would abate and so would ancillary proceedings emanating therefrom. In situation (b) (supra), the sentence or fine cannot be executed against a dead person, therefore, in absence of any application from a person seeking leave to pursue the revision, the court may terminate the proceedings as having abated."

"However, 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 the substitution of dead revisionist

"In so far as substitution in place of the deceased revisionist is concerned, there is no specific provision in the Code for substitution. Therefore, no one can claim substitution as of right. However, what is important is that there is no provision for abatement as well, as is there for an appeal (see Section 394). Hence, once a revision is entertained, in our view, the Court exercising revisional power has discretion to proceed with the revision and test the correctness, legality or propriety of the order under challenge before it, regardless of the death of the person who had invoked the revisional jurisdiction.

However, while doing so, the Court may, in its discretion, allow a person to assist it in discharge of its statutory functions provided that person has no conflict of interest. In that context, a victim of the crime would ordinarily be the most suitable person to provide assistance because of his interest in overturning a decision that went against him. 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. In that regard, the Court would be well within its jurisdiction in granting leave to such a person to pursue the revision. However, in absence of a provision for substitution, though a person may not have a legal right to claim substitution as a revisionist, there is no legal restriction on revisional court's power in allowing a person to assist the Court in furthering the cause of justice, more particularly, when strict rule of locus does not apply to a criminal revision."

In the present case, the Court found that the appellant, being the son and legal heir of the deceased informant and having a direct interest in the disputed property, squarely fell within the definition of a victim. Consequently, the High Court ought to have permitted him to assist the court in the revision proceedings.

Holding the High Court's approach to be legally unsustainable, the Supreme Court set aside both the orders dismissing the revision as abated and rejecting the appellant's application. The criminal revision was restored to the file of the High Court, with liberty granted to the appellant to assist the revisional court in his capacity as a victim.

The Court directed that the revision be decided expeditiously and clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the discharge order under challenge.

Case : Syed Shanawaz Ali v The State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1244

Click here to read the judgment