CASE NAME: Syed Shahnawaz Ali Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
CASE NUMBER: Criminal Appeal Nos. 5589-5590 of 2025
COURT: Supreme Court of India
DATE: December 19, 2025
QUORUM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra
FACTS
The present case arises from an appeal of orders dated 2 February 2024 and 31 August 2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which dismissed a criminal revision as abated following the death of the original revisionists.
The appellant’s father had applied for an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. (police officers’ power to investigate a cognizable offence), which led to an FIR against respondents 2 to 5. The Additional Sessions judge, thereafter, accepting the police report, discharged the respondents under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 34 IPC, and ordered the trial to continue only under Section 420 IPC. The complainant, thus aggrieved, filed a review petition, but during the pendency of that review petition, he died on May 5, 2021. However, the appellant, son of the complainant, who was also a witness, prayed for permission to continue the revision. But the High Court dismissed it as there was no criminal provision for substitution.
ISSUES
Whether a criminal revision proceeding under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC abates upon the death of the revisionist?
Whether a legal heir or “victim” has the locus to continue or assist the Court in a revision proceeding after the death of the original complainant?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 2(wa) of CrPC: Defines “victim” and includes guardians or legal heirs.
Section 394 of CrPC: It provides provisions regarding the abatement of appeals.
Sections 397 & 401of CrPC: Powers of the High Court to call for records and exercise revisional jurisdiction.
Section 528 of BNSS: Inherent powers of the High Court (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.).
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANTS:
The son, being the legal heir of the appellant, argues that the appellant should be considered a victim as per Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. He also contended that once a Court entertains a revision, it must test the legality and propriety of the order on its merits, regardless of the petitioner’s status, and thus, he prays for the continuation of the revision petition.
RESPONDENTS:
The respondents 2 to 5 argued that Section 394 of the CrPC, governing abatement, applies only to appeals. There is no enabling provision for the substitution of legal heirs in a revision, as in the case of an appeal. Thus, they prayed to the court to uphold the decision of abatement (i.e, to stop) by the High Court.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court, after listening to both sides, stated that the revisional power of a case is a discretionary and supervisory power, unlike an appeal, which is the statutory right of the parties involved. The court stated that, despite the lack of statutory provisions, the courts have a suo motu under revision. The revisionist’s primary role is to invite the court’s attention to the illegality. Therefore, once a revision is entertained, the Court is duty-bound to determine the legality of the challenged order on its merits, regardless of whether the party is alive.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s orders, and thus, it allowed the appellant to assist the revisional court in the capacity of a victim.
CONCLUSION
The judgment reinforces that criminal revisions are supervisory in nature and do not automatically abate upon the death of the informant or complainant. It stated that the High Court maintains the discretion to proceed with a revision to ensure delivery of justice, as it may allow a victim or legal heir to assist the Court in effectively discharging its statutory functions.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: SHARANYA M
