Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 2100

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Manoj Misra, JJ.
Syed Shahnawaz Ali - Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 5589-5590 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 1715-1716/2025)
Decided On : 19-12-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Suhail Khan, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Farid Ahmad Nizami, Adv. Mr. Vishal Raj Sehijpal, Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Ms. Talat Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Shoeb Shakeel, Adv. Ms. Vratika Mittal, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Handa, Adv. Mr. Sadiq Ali Khan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. S. Parmar, A.A.G. Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Sarthak Raizada, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Chaitanya, Adv. Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Silpi S Swain, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Sriram P., AOR

Abatement provisions for appeals do not apply to revisions, allowing a victim to continue proceedings even after the original revisionist's death.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 397 read with Section 401 – Abatement of revision – Since strict rule of locus does not apply to revision proceeding, on death of revisionist, law of abatement that applies to appeal does not apply to revision proceeding, more particularly when revision is not at instance of accused – If accused has invoked revisional power for testing correctness of order rejecting his discharge application, on his death, revision proceeding would abate because main trial would abate and ancillary proceeding emanating therefrom would automatically abate – But where main proceeding survives despite death of revisionist, revision may not abate owing to nature of revisional proceeding.(Paras 12 and 17)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 394 – Revision – Abatement and Substitution – There is no specific provision in the Code for substitution – No one can claim substitution as of right – When revisional powers are invoked by victim of crime, and he dies during pendency of revision, other victims of that crime, may be allowed to assist Court in effectively discharging its statutory function – In that regard, Court would be well within its jurisdiction in granting leave to such a person to pursue revision – However, in absence of provision for substitution, though a person may not have legal right to claim substitution as a revisionist, there is no legal restriction on revisional court’s power in allowing a person to assist Court in furthering cause of justice, more particularly, when strict rule of locus does not apply to a criminal revision – Appellant is a victim of crime and has vital interest in outcome of proceeding – Order of High Court dismissing revision as abated, and order rejecting application of appellant, set aside – Revision case restored on file of High Court.(Paras 18, 19, 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
The issue which arises for consideration is whether on death of revisionist, revision proceeding under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. would abate.
Findings of Court:
Revision No. 1986 of 2020 is restored on file of High Court. The appellant shall be at liberty to assist revisional court in capacity of a victim of crime, and revision shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with the law.
Result : Appeals allowed.

Table of Content
1. registration and proceedings of fir (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. legal status of victim and abatement (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. nature of revisional power and abatement (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. finding on the unsustainability of the high court's order (Para 19 , 20)
5. restoration of revision and next steps (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These two appeals arise from a common proceeding and are directed against the orders of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur¹[The High Court] dated 21.02.2024 and 31.08.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1986 of 2020 and Misc. Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 36327 of 2024 respectively.

Facts

3. The father of the appellant, Shamshad Ali, filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973²[Cr.P.C.] for registering a first information report³[FIR] against respondents 2 to 5. The said application was allowed, an FIR was registered and investigated. After investigation, police report was submitted indicting respondents 2 to 5 for offences punishable under Sections 419 , 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860⁴[IPC]. However, vide order dated 07.03.2020, the Court of XVIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, M.P. discharged the accused respondents 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. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.03.2020, the father of the appellant (i.e., the informant) filed Criminal Revision No. 1986 of 2020 before the High Court.

4. During pendency of the revision, on 05.05.2021 the father of the appellant i.e., the revisionist died. The appellant, who was arrayed as a witness in the police report, filed IA No. 19769 of 2021 to continue the revision proceedings. The High Court by the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 rejected the application holding that there is no provision for substitution in a Criminal Revision and, therefore, the Revision would abate.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant filed an application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023⁵[ BNSS ] (corresponding to Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) for recall of the order dated 21.02.2024. This application was dismissed by the second impugned order dated 31.08.2024. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 21.02.2024 and 31.08.2024, the appellant is before this Court.

Submissions

6. In short, the submission on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant is a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa)⁶[Section 2 (wa) of CrPC. – “victim” means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression “victim” includes his or her guardian or legal heir] of Cr.P.C. and is, therefore, entitled to continue the revision proceedings. In the alternative, it is submitted that a revision cannot abate. Once the Court entertains a revision, the Court has to test the legality and propriety of the order impugned before it. Therefore, the appropriate course for the High Court was to decide the matter on merits and for an effective hearing to allow the appellant’s counsel or an amicus to assist the Court.

7. On behalf of the State, written submissions have been filed accepting the rights of a victim to participate in the criminal justice process.

8. Per contra, on behalf of respondents 2 to 5, it has been contended that Section 394⁷[394. Abatement of appeals.

(1) Every appeal under Section 377 or Section 378 shall finally abate on the death of the accused.

(2) Every other appeal under this Chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant : Provided that where the appeal is against a conviction and sentence of death or of imprisonment, and the appellant dies during the pendency of the appeal, any of his near relatives may, within thirty days of the death of the ap