When Criminal Revision Is At The Instance Of Informant Or Complainant, Proceedings Will Not Abate Upon His Death: Supreme Court

​The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra held, “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. 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.”

AOR Chand Qureshi appeared on behalf of the Appellant, whereas AAG DS Parmar appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The father of the Appellant filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for registration of the first information report against the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The said application was allowed, FIR was registered, and, subsequently, a final report was filed for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, the Sessions Court discharged the Accused persons from offences punishable under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 IPC and directed the trial to proceed under Section 420 IPC only.

The Appellant’s father, acting as the informant, filed a revision petition to challenge the lower court’s order. Following the informant's death, the Appellant—who was a witness in the police report—moved an application to continue the revision petition. However, the High Court rejected this application, ruling that a Criminal Revision necessarily abates upon the death of the revisionist due to a lack of specific provisions for substitution. A subsequent application for recall filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) was also dismissed, leading to the current appeal before this Court.

Contention of the parties

The submission on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant is a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa)6 of Cr.P.C. and is, therefore, entitled to continue the revision proceedings. In the alternative, it is submitted that a revision cannot abate. It was submitted once the Court entertains a revision, the Court has to test the legality and propriety of the order impugned before it.

Per contra, on behalf of the Accused, it was contended that Section 3947 of Cr.P.C. applies to appeals. There is no corresponding provision for the continuance of a revision by the legal heirs, it was stated.

Observations of the Court

The main issue for the consideration of the Court was whether, on the death of the revisionist, the revision proceeding under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. would abate.

The Court said, “The answer to it would depend on the nature of the order under challenge in the revision. If, for example, an accused has invoked the revisional power for testing the correctness of an order rejecting his discharge application, on his death, the revision proceeding would abate because the main trial would abate and, therefore, ancillary proceeding emanating therefrom would automatically abate. But where the main proceeding survives despite death of the revisionist, the revision may not abate owing to the nature of the revisional proceeding.”

It was held that there is no specific provision in the Code for substitution; therefore, no one can claim substitution as of right. However, the court added that what is important is that there is no provision for abatement as well, as is there for an appeal, hence, once a revision is entertained, 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.

“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.”, the Court observed.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that the impugned order of the High Court dismissing the revision as having abated on the death of the revisionist is held unsustainable in law.

“Since on revisionist’s death, his son (i.e., the appellant herein) would inherit an interest in the property, 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 Court added.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restored the revision petition before the High Court.

Cause Title: Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1484]

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocate on Record Chand Qureshi and Advocates Suhail Khan, Farid Ahmad Nizami, Vishal Raj Sehijpal, Mujahid Ahmad, Talat Chaudhary, Shoeb Shakeel, Vratika Mittal, Priyanka Handa, and Sadiq Ali Khan.

Respondents: AAG DS Parmar, Advocates on Record Mrinal Gopal Elker and Sriram P., alongside Advocates D. S. Parmar, Sarthak Raizada, Amit Sharma, Saurabh Singh, Chinmoy Chaitanya, Aditya Chaudhary, Silpi S Swain, and Jagdish Trivedi.

Click here to read/download the Judgment