High Court Order Declaring Criminal Revision Abated Is Set Aside; Victim-Substitute Allowed to Assist Revision

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra heard appeals by Syed Shahnawaz Ali challenging two orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had held that a criminal revision petition abated on the death of the original revisionist and had refused the revisionist’s son leave to continue the proceedings. The appeals raised the narrow question whether a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC abated on the death of the person who invoked revisional jurisdiction and whether a legal heir or other victim could be permitted to assist or substitute in the revisional proceeding.

The Court allowed the appeals, held that dismissal of the revision as abated was legally unsustainable and restored the revision to the file of the High Court. The Court emphasised that revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and may be exercised even where the original petitioner has died; the court may permit an appropriate person to assist in the revision, particularly a victim within Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "There is no specific provision in the Code for substitution and no one can claim substitution as of right. However, there is also no provision for abatement as in an appeal (see Section 394). 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 regardless of the death of the person who had invoked the revisional jurisdiction. 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 ... other victims of that crime, who fall within the scope of Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., may be allowed to assist the Court." The Court also quoted earlier authority to note that "once a Rule is issued, that Rule has to be heard and determined in accordance with law, whether or not the petitioner is alive or dead."

Background The dispute arose from an application under Section 156(3) CrPC by Shamshad Ali (the informant) which led to registration of an FIR and a police report accusing respondents of offences including cheating (Section 420 IPC) and various offences relating to fabricated documents. The trial court, by order dated 07.03.2020, discharged the accused of several offences and directed trial on Section 420 IPC alone. The informant filed Criminal Revision No. 1986 of 2020 in the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the discharge order. While the revision was pending the informant died on 05.05.2021. His son, Syed Shahnawaz Ali (the present appellant), who was a witness in the police report, moved the High Court to continue the revision. The High Court by order dated 21.02.2024 held that there was no provision for substitution in a criminal revision and treated the revision as abated; an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to recall that order was dismissed on 31.08.2024.

The appellant argued that he was a "victim" within Section 2(wa) and had a proprietary interest in the subject property, and that once the High Court had entertained revision it should decide the matter on merits rather than abate it. Respondents contended that substitution rules applicable to appeals did not apply to revisions and the impugned orders required no interference. The Supreme Court analysed the law on abatement and revisional powers, relied on precedents including Praban Kumar Mitra and subsequent decisions, and concluded that revisional jurisdiction is discretionary, not strictly governed by locus rules applicable to appeals. The Court held that where a revision survives the death of the original revisionist — particularly when the revision was invoked by a complainant/victim and the main trial continued — the revisional court may proceed and, in its discretion, permit an appropriate victim or legal heir to assist. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court orders, restored Revision No. 1986 of 2020 to the High Court file, granted the appellant liberty to assist the revisional court as a victim of the crime, and directed that the revision be decided expeditiously. The Court made no observation on the merits of the challenged discharge order.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1484 (Criminal Appeal Nos. 5589-5590 of 2025; arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1715-1716/2025) Case Title: Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in judgment]