Criminal Revision by Informant Doesn't Abate on His Death

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News?

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra in the case of Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) held that a criminal revision petition does not automatically abate upon the death of the revisionist when filed by an informant or victim, and other victims can continue the proceedings.

What was the Background of Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) Case? 

• The case arose from a property dispute involving allegations of forgery, cheating, and conspiracy. 
• Shamshad Ali, father of appellant Syed Shahnawaz Ali, filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking registration of an FIR. 
• Following police investigation, a chargesheet was filed for multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code. 
• In March 2020, the sessions court discharged the accused of all offences except cheating under Section 420 IPC. 
• The informant filed a criminal revision before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the discharge order. 
• During the pendency of the revision proceedings, the informant Shamshad Ali died in May 2021. 
• His son, Syed Shahnawaz Ali, sought permission to continue the revision proceedings in his capacity as legal heir and victim. 
• The High Court rejected the request, holding that there was no provision for substitution in criminal revisions and that the revision had abated. 
• A subsequent recall application filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the High Court. 
• The appellant then approached the Supreme Court challenging both orders of the High Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that unlike appeals governed by Section 394 CrPC, there is no statutory provision for abatement of criminal revisions. 
• Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is discretionary and exercised to supervise criminal justice administration and correct illegality or impropriety. 
• The bench emphasized that strict rules of locus standi do not apply to revision proceedings, particularly when filed by an informant or victim. 
• The Court distinguished between revisions filed by accused persons and those filed by informants, holding that when revision is filed by an informant or complainant, proceedings do not abate upon their death. 
• While no one has a vested right to claim substitution as revisionist, the revisional court has discretion to allow suitable persons to assist it, using the definition of "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC as a guiding principle. 
• The Court explained that when a victim dies during pendency of revision, other victims falling within Section 2(wa) may be allowed to assist the court in furthering justice. 
• In the present case, the appellant, being the son and legal heir with direct interest in the disputed property, fell within the definition of victim and should have been permitted to assist the High Court. 
• The Supreme Court set aside both High Court orders, restored the criminal revision, and directed it be decided expeditiously with the appellant assisting as a victim.

What is Criminal Revision? 

Statutory Framework: 

• Section 397 of CrPC (Section 438 of BNSS) empowers the High Court and Sessions Judge to call and examine records of inferior criminal courts within their jurisdiction to verify correctness, legality, and propriety of decisions, judgments, sentences, and procedural compliance. 
• These courts can suspend sentence enforcement or grant bail/personal bond to accused persons during record examination. 
• Section 397(2) bars revisional power from being invoked to challenge interlocutory orders made during inquiry, appeal, trial, or similar proceedings. 
• Section 401 of CrPC (442 of BNSS) provides that no revision lies when an appeal could have been filed but wasn't, except when the High Court may treat such revision application as an appeal in the interests of justice. 

Nature and Scope: 

• Revisional jurisdiction is a supervisory power exercised by High Court and Sessions Judge under Sections 397, 399, and 401 of CrPC  
• The scope is broad, allowing examination of correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, order, and regularity of proceedings in subordinate courts. 
• High Courts and Sessions Judges possess concurrent and co-extensive revisional jurisdiction over subordinate criminal courts within their territorial jurisdiction. 
• Exercise of revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and typically limited to questions of law or cases involving perverse findings. 

Statutory Limitations: 

• Section 397(3) bars one court from exercising revisional jurisdiction if another has already done so on the same subject matter. 
• Prohibition on revising interlocutory orders (Section 397(2)), though interpreted liberally in favor of accused. 
• Restriction on filing multiple revision applications by the same person (Section 397(3)). 
• Mandatory hearing of accused or affected person before passing adverse orders (Section 401(2)). 
• Prohibition on converting acquittals into convictions (Section 401(3)). 
• Bar on revision proceedings when an appeal was available but not pursued (Section 401(4)). 

Powers and Limitations: 

• Revisional courts generally cannot re-appreciate evidence, except in cases of glaring procedural defects or manifest errors causing flagrant miscarriage of justice. 
• Section 401(1) allows revisional courts to exercise appellate court powers (under Section 386) for ensuring correctness, legality, or propriety of lower court decisions. 
• High Courts retain power to enhance sentences in revisional jurisdiction despite provision for state appeals under Section 377. 
• Interference with acquittals in revision is permissible in specific circumstances: lack of jurisdiction, wrongful exclusion of evidence, overlooking material evidence, or invalid compounding of offences. 

Special Features: 

• Revisional jurisdiction can be invoked suo motu by the court or at the instance of third parties, as the power vests with the court itself. 
• Criminal revisions, like criminal appeals, cannot be dismissed for default or want of prosecution. 
• Judicial opinion is split on whether Sessions Judges can enhance sentences in revisional jurisdiction, with conflicting High Court views. 
• Orders substantially affecting rights or deciding important issues are not considered purely interlocutory under Section 397(2).