-
by Admin
15 February 2026 5:35 AM
“Revisional Jurisdiction Is Not About Who Filed It—It's About What Justice Demands”: In a significant ruling on the rights of victims and the scope of revisional jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of India held that a criminal revision petition does not abate on the death of the informant and that the legal heir, being a victim under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, is entitled to assist the court even if no formal substitution provision exists.
Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had dismissed a criminal revision petition as abated on the death of the informant (father of the appellant), and had further refused to allow the appellant-son to continue the matter.
“There Is No Provision for Abatement of Revision Proceedings—Only Appeals Abate Under Section 394”: Court Clarifies Long-Standing Confusion
The Supreme Court categorically ruled that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) provides no statutory basis for abatement of criminal revision proceedings:
“Where the main proceeding survives despite death of the revisionist, the revision may not abate owing to the nature of the revisional proceeding.” [Para 12]
The Court drew a distinction between appeals, where Section 394 CrPC explicitly deals with abatement, and revisions, where no such provision exists. Thus, death of the complainant or informant does not extinguish a pending revision, particularly when the trial of the accused continues.
“Victim Has a Right to Assist the Court Even Without Substitution”—Son of Informant Allowed to Participate
The case stemmed from a discharge order passed in 2020, where a Bhopal Sessions Court discharged accused persons of serious offences under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, and directed the trial to proceed only under Section 420 IPC (cheating). The informant, Shamshad Ali, filed a criminal revision (Cr.R. No. 1986/2020) against this partial discharge before the High Court.
Upon his death in 2021, his son Syed Shahnawaz Ali, sought to continue the revision, arguing he was a victim with direct property interest and should be allowed to assist the court. The High Court rejected his request, holding that there is no provision in CrPC for substitution in a revision, and declared the matter abated.
The Supreme Court reversed this view:
“The appellant is a victim of the crime and, therefore, has vital interest in the outcome of the proceeding... The revisional court could have allowed him to assist the court in the capacity of a victim.” [Para 20]
Revisional Power Is Discretionary—Not Dependent on Who Invokes It
Relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Praban Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal, the Court reaffirmed the settled legal principle that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and can be exercised suo motu:
“Whether or not the petitioner is alive or dead... once a Rule is issued, that Rule has to be heard and determined in accordance with law.” [Para 13 quoting Mitra]
“The role of the revisionist is essentially that of a person who invites attention of the Court... The Court discharges a statutory function of supervising the administration of justice on the criminal side.” [Para 15]
Therefore, strict locus standi does not apply to revisional proceedings, and even a third party with no direct injury may, in appropriate cases, seek intervention, though courts must exercise caution to avoid misuse.
Section 2(wa) CrPC Serves As Guidepost for Determining Victim Standing
In allowing the appellant-son to participate, the Court relied heavily on the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC, which includes not just the person who suffered injury, but also his or her legal heirs in case of death.
“To ensure that revisional power is not abused... the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the Code may be used as a guide to determine whether a revision should be entertained.” [Para 16]
Thus, the Court affirmed that other victims of the same crime, including family members of a deceased informant, may be permitted to assist the revisional court in furtherance of justice.
No Substitution Right in Law—But No Bar on Court’s Discretion to Permit Assistance
The Bench clarified a critical doctrinal nuance: while there is no legal right to substitution in a revision as there is in appeals (under Section 394), courts retain the discretion to allow a person to assist in order to facilitate judicial supervision:
“There is no provision for substitution... however... there is no legal restriction on the revisional court’s power in allowing a person to assist the Court in furthering the cause of justice.” [Para 18]
This approach balances the absence of procedural substitution with the interest of justice, allowing courts to remain responsive to the rights of victims.
Key Findings of the Court on Law of Revision and Victim Rights:
High Court to Decide Revision on Merits With Assistance of Appellant
“The order of the High Court dismissing the revision as abated, and the order rejecting the application of the appellant, are liable to be set aside and are, hereby, set aside. The appeals are allowed.” [Para 21]
The Supreme Court directed that the Criminal Revision No. 1986 of 2020 be restored on the file of the High Court and that the appellant, being a victim with interest in the subject property, be allowed to assist the court. The revision is to be decided expeditiously and on merits, with no influence from the observations in the present judgment.
Date of Decision: December 19, 2025
