Supreme Court clarifies criminal revision does not abate on informant’s death, victims may continue proceedings under CrPC.
Case in NewsCriminal revision does not abate on death, Supreme Court allows victims to continue proceedings . |
Case Overview
Case Name: Syed Shahnawaz Ali vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
In Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court examined whether a criminal revision filed by an informant abates upon his death . The Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra set aside orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had dismissed a criminal revision as abated after the death of the original informant . The Court clarified the scope of revisional jurisdiction and the role of victims in such proceedings under the CrPC .
Key Aspects
The dispute arose from a property-related criminal case where the informant challenged partial discharge of accused persons . The Supreme Court analysed the procedural consequences of the informant’s death during pendency of revision .
- Informant sought FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC alleging forgery and cheating .
- Police filed chargesheet for multiple IPC offences; accused discharged except under Section 420 IPC .
- Informant filed criminal revision before High Court against discharge order .
- Informant died during pendency; son sought permission to continue revision.
- High Court dismissed revision as abated and rejected substitution application .
Legal Insights
The judgment elaborates on revisional powers and absence of statutory abatement provisions in revisions .
- Section 397 CrPC : confers supervisory revisional jurisdiction on High Courts.
- Section 401 CrPC : empowers revisional courts to correct illegality or impropriety .
- Section 394 CrPC applies only to appeals, not criminal revisions .
- Section 2(wa) CrPC: definition of “victim” guides who may assist revisional courts .
Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court held that a criminal revision filed by an informant or victim does not abate on his death . It ruled that revisional courts have discretion to proceed on merits and allow other victims to assist the court . Terming the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, the Court restored the criminal revision and permitted the appellant-son, being a victim, to assist the High Court . The revision was directed to be decided expeditiously, without any opinion on merits .
Source – Supreme Court of India
Read also – CrPC
