Introduction
In a significant ruling strengthening victim-centric jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has held that a criminal revision petition filed by an informant or victim does not automatically abate upon their death. The Court clarified that, unlike criminal appeals, there is no statutory provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) mandating abatement of criminal revisions, and that other victims may be permitted to continue the proceedings in the interest of justice.
The judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra, sets aside orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had dismissed a criminal revision as abated following the death of the informant. The ruling has important implications for victims’ rights, locus standi in criminal revisions, and the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.
Background of the Case
The case arose out of a property dispute involving allegations of forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy. Shamshad Ali, the father of the appellant, had filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, seeking registration of an FIR. After investigation, the police filed a chargesheet for multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code.
However, in March 2020, the Sessions Court discharged the accused of all offences except cheating under Section 420 IPC. Aggrieved by the partial discharge, the informant filed a criminal revision petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
During the pendency of the revision, the informant died in May 2021. Subsequently, his son sought permission to continue the revision proceedings. The High Court rejected the request, holding that criminal revisions abate on the death of the revisionist and that there was no provision for substitution. A recall application met the same fate.
The matter then reached the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issue
The principal question before the Supreme Court was:
Does a criminal revision filed by an informant or victim abate upon their death, and can another victim or legal heir continue the proceedings?
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Abatement of Criminal Revisions
Distinction Between Appeals and Revisions
The Supreme Court began its analysis by drawing a crucial distinction between criminal appeals and criminal revisions under the CrPC.
- Section 394 CrPC expressly governs the abatement of criminal appeals upon the death of the appellant.
- However, there is no corresponding provision in the CrPC providing for abatement of criminal revision petitions.
The Court observed that revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is supervisory and discretionary in nature, aimed at correcting illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional errors in criminal proceedings.
“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.”
Revisional Jurisdiction Is Court-Centric, Not Party-Centric
The Bench emphasised that once a High Court entertains a criminal revision, the focus shifts from the individual litigant to the correctness of the impugned order. The revisional court exercises its powers to ensure proper administration of criminal justice.
Relying on Constitution Bench and earlier precedents, including Honnaiah T.H. v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that:
- Death of the revisionist does not divest the court of its power to examine the legality of the order under challenge
- As long as the main criminal proceedings survive, the revision should ordinarily be decided on merits
Role of Victims and Legal Heirs in Revision Proceedings
No Automatic Right of Substitution
While allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court clarified an important limitation:
There is no vested or automatic right of substitution in criminal revision proceedings.
Unlike civil proceedings, criminal law does not recognise a blanket right of legal representatives to step into the shoes of the deceased litigant. However, this does not mean the proceedings must necessarily terminate.
Discretion of the Revisional Court
The Court held that the revisional court has ample discretion to permit a suitable person to assist it, particularly when such assistance furthers the cause of justice.
To prevent misuse of revisional jurisdiction by unrelated or motivated persons, the Court laid down an important safeguard.
Section 2(wa) CrPC: Definition of “Victim” as a Guiding Principle
The Supreme Court observed that while the strict rule of locus standi does not apply, courts must remain cautious against entertaining revisions by “complete strangers” with no legitimate interest.
To address this concern, the Bench held that the statutory definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC can be used as a guiding principle to determine whether a person should be permitted to assist the court.
“The court must be circumspect in entertaining petitions at the behest of complete strangers to the dispute, otherwise the discretionary power may become a tool in the hands of those who, though have suffered no injury, have an axe to grind.”
Thus, legal heirs or persons who fall within the definition of “victim” may be allowed to continue or assist in revision proceedings, depending on the facts of the case.
When Can a Criminal Revision Be Treated as Abated?
The Court clarified that a criminal revision may effectively come to an end only in limited situations, such as:
- Where the main criminal proceedings themselves do not survive
- Where the subject matter of revision has become purely personal and infructuous
- Where continuation of proceedings would serve no purpose in law
However, death of the informant alone is not a valid ground for abatement.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling has far-reaching implications for criminal jurisprudence in India:
1. Strengthening Victim-Centric Justice
The judgment reinforces the evolving jurisprudence that recognises victims as key stakeholders in the criminal justice system, not mere informants.
2. Clarifying Law on Abatement of Revisions
By categorically holding that criminal revisions do not abate automatically, the Supreme Court has resolved a long-standing area of confusion among High Courts.
3. Preventing Mechanical Dismissals
The ruling discourages mechanical dismissal of criminal revisions on technical grounds and promotes adjudication on merits.
4. Balanced Approach to Locus Standi
While expanding access to justice for victims, the Court has also ensured safeguards against abuse by relying on Section 2(wa) CrPC.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision that a criminal revision filed by an informant does not abate upon their death marks an important step towards substantive justice. By recognising the discretionary and supervisory nature of revisional jurisdiction, and by allowing other victims to assist the court, the ruling ensures that technicalities do not defeat the pursuit of justice.
This judgment will serve as a crucial precedent for future cases involving victim participation, criminal revisions, and abatement under CrPC, and will likely influence High Court practice across the country.
Also Read
Non-Compete Fee Is Revenue Expenditure Under Section 37(1) Of Income Tax Act: Supreme Court
