Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the High Court’s orders that treated a criminal revision as having come to an end on the death of the revisionist, restored the revision for adjudication on merits, and permitted the deceased informant’s heir to assist the revisional court as a victim, with directions for an expeditious decision. The Court clarified that a criminal revision does not automatically terminate upon the revisionist’s death where the revision is instituted by an informant or victim rather than an accused, and that the revisional court may still examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order while allowing a victim to assist in furtherance of justice. The dispute arose from allegations that the accused relied on a fabricated sale deed to claim the informant’s property, and from an order discharging the accused from several offences while the trial continued for cheating.

The proceedings arose from a private complaint initiated by the informant seeking registration of a criminal case against certain accused persons. Acting on an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate directed registration of an FIR, following which the police conducted investigation and submitted a charge sheet alleging commission of offences under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, conspiracy, and common intention.

Also Read: ‘Manifestly Perverse’: Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras High Court Bail To Accused Who Allegedly Murdered Key Eyewitness While On Bail

Upon consideration, the Sessions Court discharged the accused from all offences except cheating under Section 420 IPC and directed the trial to proceed only in respect of that offence. Aggrieved by the partial discharge, the informant filed a criminal revision before the High Court.

During the pendency of the revision, the informant died. His legal heir, who was cited as a witness in the police report, sought permission to continue the revision proceedings. The High Court rejected the application on the ground that there was no provision for substitution in criminal revision proceedings and held that the revision had abated. A subsequent application seeking recall of the order was also dismissed. These orders were challenged before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined the concept of abatement and noted that “abatement of proceedings connotes their termination without any decision on the merits”. The Court explained that in criminal law, abatement ordinarily occurs where continuation of proceedings becomes legally impossible, particularly upon the death of the accused.

While analysing revisional jurisdiction, the Court reiterated the settled position that “revisional power under Cr.P.C. is a discretionary power” and that such power “can be exercised suo motu”. It was recorded that “the role of the revisionist is essentially that of a person who invites attention of the Court that an occasion to exercise the revisional power has arisen”.

Referring to earlier Constitution Bench authority, the Court stated that once a revision is entertained, “that Rule has to be heard and determined in accordance with law, whether or not the petitioner is alive or dead”. The Court clarified that “considerations applying to abatement of an appeal may not apply to the case of revisional applications”.

On the issue of locus, the Court observed that “strict rule of locus does not apply to a revision proceeding” and therefore the law of abatement applicable to appeals under Section 394 Cr.P.C. does not automatically extend to criminal revisions, particularly where the revision is not filed by the accused.

The Court further recorded that where a revision is filed by an informant or complainant, “on his death, the proceedings will not abate” and the revisional court retains discretion to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order. It was also observed that “a victim of the crime would ordinarily be the most suitable person to provide assistance” to the court in such proceedings.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the High Court’s view that the revision stood abated was legally unsustainable.

Also Read: Fresh Section 21 Notice Mandatory For Second Arbitration After Earlier Award Set Aside; Kerala High Court

The Supreme Court directed that “the order of the High Court dismissing the revision as having abated on death of the revisionist is held unsustainable in law” and accordingly “the order of the High Court dismissing the revision as abated, and the order rejecting the application of the appellant, are liable to be set aside and are, hereby, set aside.”

“The appeals are allowed” and that “Revision No. 1986 of 2020 is restored on the file of the High Court.” The Court specifically directed that “the appellant shall be at liberty to assist the revisional court in the capacity of a victim of the crime” and that “the revision shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with the law.”

The Court clarified that “we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the order under challenge in the revision proceeding” and directed that “the revision shall be decided on its own merit without being influenced by any observation made herein above.” It was also directed that “pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.”

Case Title: Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1484
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 5589–5590 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Manoj Misra