The Supreme Court has ruled that a criminal revision petition does not automatically come to an end on the death of the revisionist, especially when the revision has been filed by an informant or victim and not by the accused. The Court clarified that in such situations, the revisional court retains the discretion to examine the legality, correctness, and propriety of the challenged order and may permit a victim to assist the court in the interest of justice.

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

Background of the Case

The matter arose from a property dispute in which Shamshad Ali, father of the appellant Syed Shahnawaz Ali, had approached the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking registration of an FIR for offences including forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy. After investigation, the police filed a chargesheet for multiple IPC offences. In March 2020, however, the Sessions Court discharged the accused of all charges except the offence under Section 420 IPC.

Aggrieved by the partial discharge, the informant filed a criminal revision before the High Court. During the pendency of the revision, he passed away in May 2021. His son thereafter sought permission to pursue the revision, but the High Court declined, holding that criminal revisions abate on the death of the revisionist and that there is no provision for substitution. A recall application was also dismissed.

Supreme Court’s Findings

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of the concept of abatement in criminal proceedings and the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC. The Court reiterated that while abatement of criminal appeals is expressly provided under Section 394 CrPC, there is no corresponding provision for abatement of criminal revisions.

The Bench observed that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and discretionary in nature, aimed at correcting illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional errors in subordinate court orders. It held that the strict rule of locus standi does not apply to criminal revision proceedings and, therefore, the principles governing abatement of appeals cannot be mechanically extended to revisions—particularly when the revision is filed by an informant or victim.

Relying on earlier Constitution Bench judgments and precedents such as Honnaiah T.H. v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that once a revision is entertained, it should ordinarily be decided on merits so long as the main proceedings survive, irrespective of the death of the person who invoked the revisional jurisdiction.

Role of Victims and Substitution

The Court clarified that although there is no statutory right to substitution in criminal revisions, there is equally no statutory bar on the revisional court allowing an appropriate person to assist it. To prevent misuse of revisional powers by strangers with no legitimate interest, the Court held that the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC may be used as a guiding factor.

The Bench explained that a revision may be treated as abated in certain situations where it is filed by an accused or convict—such as when it arises from an interlocutory order during trial or challenges a conviction—since the trial or sentence cannot continue against a deceased person. However, where the revision is at the instance of an informant or complainant, the proceedings do not abate upon his death, and the revisional court may proceed to examine the challenged order.

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, clearly fell within the definition of a “victim.” As such, 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 impugned orders, restored the criminal revision to the High Court’s file, and granted liberty to the appellant to assist the revisional court as a victim. The High Court was directed to decide the revision expeditiously, with the Supreme Court clarifying that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the discharge order.

Case: Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. State of Madhya Pradesh