The Supreme Court has ruled that criminal revision proceedings filed by an informant or complainant do not automatically abate after their death. The Court held that the revisional court may continue to examine the legality and correctness of the lower court’s order in the interest of justice.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has clarified an important legal position on whether criminal revision proceedings come to an end after the death of the person who filed them. The Court observed that criminal revision proceedings do not automatically abate on the death of the informant or complainant.
However, if the revision is filed by an accused or a convicted person, the revisional court may refuse to continue the proceedings after his death, depending on the nature of the case.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra explained the law in clear terms and 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.”
Advocate-on-Record Chand Qureshi appeared for the appellant, while Additional Advocate General D.S. Parmar represented the respondents before the Court.
The case arose from a criminal complaint filed by the appellant’s father, who approached the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking registration of an FIR against Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
The Magistrate allowed the application, following which an FIR was registered. After investigation, the police filed a final report alleging offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Later, the Sessions Court discharged the accused persons from offences under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 IPC and directed that the trial should continue only for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant’s father, who was the informant, filed a criminal revision petition challenging the partial discharge of the accused.
During the pendency of the revision petition, the informant passed away. After his death, the appellant, who was a witness named in the police report, filed an application seeking permission to continue the revision proceedings.
However, the High Court rejected this request, holding that a criminal revision abates upon the death of the revisionist as there is no provision for substitution under the Cr.P.C.
The appellant then filed an application seeking recall of the order under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. This application was also dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that he falls within the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. and is therefore entitled to continue the revision proceedings.
Alternatively, it was submitted that criminal revision proceedings do not abate at all once the court has exercised its revisional jurisdiction and entertained the matter.
It was argued that once a revision is admitted, the court is duty-bound to examine the legality, correctness, and propriety of the order challenged before it.
On the other hand, the accused persons opposed the appeal and contended that Section 394 of the Cr.P.C. specifically provides for abatement of appeals and that there is no corresponding provision permitting legal heirs to continue revision proceedings.
It was argued that in the absence of such a provision, the revision must be treated as abated on the death of the revisionist.
The Supreme Court framed the main issue for consideration as whether a criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. would abate on the death of the revisionist. While answering this question, the Court observed,
“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.”
The Court noted that there is no specific provision in the Cr.P.C. either allowing substitution in revision proceedings or mandating their abatement. Unlike appeals, where abatement is expressly provided for, criminal revisions stand on a different footing.
The Court held that since there is no statutory provision for abatement of revisions, the revisional court has the discretion to continue examining the legality, correctness, or propriety of the order challenged, even after the death of the person who filed the revision.
The Bench further explained the role of victims in such proceedings and observed,
“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.”
Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed a legal error in dismissing the revision petition solely on the ground that the revisionist had died.
The Court held that the appellant, being the son of the deceased informant, would inherit an interest in the property involved and therefore qualifies as a “victim” under the Cr.P.C.
The Court concluded,
“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.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order declaring the revision as abated, and restored the criminal revision petition for fresh consideration by the High Court.
Case Title:
Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.,
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1484
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam
