Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025
The Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between appeals and revisions, emphasizing the supervisory nature of revisional jurisdiction.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
22 December 2025
Judges
Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The dispute arose out of a property-related conflict involving allegations of forgery, cheating, and conspiracy.
-
The father of the appellant, Shamshad Ali, filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking registration of an FIR.
-
Following investigation, the police filed a chargesheet for multiple offences under the IPC.
-
In March 2020, the Sessions Court discharged the accused of all offences except cheating under Section 420 IPC.
-
Aggrieved by the discharge, the informant filed a criminal revision before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
-
During the pendency of the revision, the informant died in May 2021.
-
The informant’s son applied to continue the revision proceedings.
-
The High Court dismissed the revision as abated and rejected the son’s application, holding that substitution is not provided in criminal revisions.
-
A recall application filed thereafter was also dismissed.
-
These orders were challenged before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether a criminal revision petition abates automatically upon the death of the revisionist?
- Whether the principles of abatement under Section 394 CrPC applicable to appeals also apply to criminal revisions?
- Whether a victim or legal heir can be permitted to continue or assist in revision proceedings after the death of the original revisionist?
- Whether the High Court erred in refusing to exercise its revisional discretion?
- Whether the son of the deceased informant fell within the statutory definition of a victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC?
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the appellant.
-
The Court set aside both orders passed by the High Court dismissing the revision as abated and rejecting the application to continue proceedings.
-
The criminal revision was restored to the file of the High Court.
-
The appellant was granted liberty to assist the revisional court in his capacity as a victim.
-
The High Court was directed to decide the revision expeditiously.
-
The Supreme Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the discharge order.
Held
-
The Supreme Court held that criminal revisions do not automatically abate on the death of the revisionist.
-
The Court clarified that Section 394 CrPC applies only to appeals and not to criminal revisions.
-
It was held that revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and meant to correct illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error.
-
Where a revision is filed by an informant or victim, the proceedings do not abate on death.
-
Where a revision is filed by an accused or convict, the court may treat the revision as abated in appropriate circumstances.
-
The Court held that no person has a vested right to substitution, but the revisional court may permit a suitable person to assist it.
Analysis
-
The Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between appeals and revisions, emphasizing the supervisory nature of revisional jurisdiction.
-
The Court reaffirmed that strict rules of locus standi do not apply to criminal revision proceedings.
-
The judgment prevents mechanical dismissal of revisions on technical grounds such as death of the revisionist.
-
The Court cautioned that revisional jurisdiction should not be abused by strangers with no legitimate interest.
-
The definition of victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC was endorsed as a guiding factor for permitting assistance to the court.
-
The ruling strengthens victim participation in criminal proceedings and ensures continuity of judicial scrutiny.
-
The decision promotes substantive justice over procedural rigidity.