Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-005589-005590 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 416/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 CrPC is discretionary and not a statutory right subject to abatement on the death of an informant. Abatement rules in Section 394 CrPC apply only to appeals, not revisions. In absence of any provision for abatement or substitution in revision, the High Court may continue the revision and, in its discretion, allow a victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC to assist. Such assistance furthers the High Court’s supervisory function without creating a right of substitution. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Analysis of “abatement” in Black’s Law Dictionary; distinction between appeal-abatement under Section 394 CrPC and revisional power under Sections 397/401; discretionary nature of revision; Section 2(wa) victim definition. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The informant’s father obtained registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC; the Sessions Court discharged accused except under Section 420 IPC; the informant filed Criminal Revision No. 1986/2020; he died during pendency; High Court held revision abated and refused substitution; appellant’s Section 528 BNSS (482 CrPC) plea to restore revision and assist was rejected. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate criminal courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts exercising revisional jurisdiction |
| Follows | Praban Kumar Mitra v. State of W.B. & Anr.; Honnaiah T.H. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. |
| Distinguishes | Abatement provisions in Section 394 CrPC (appeals) are inapplicable to revisions under Sections 397/401 CrPC |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A criminal revision filed by an informant does not abate on the informant’s death, since revision is discretionary and not a statutory right subject to abatement.
- Section 394 CrPC’s abatement rule applies only to appeals, not to revisions under Sections 397/401.
- In absence of statutory substitution for revisions, the High Court may continue the revision once entertained.
- A “victim” as defined in Section 2(wa) CrPC can be permitted to assist the Court in revision proceedings, even if the original revisionist has died.
- This judgment provides a binding precedent for High Courts on handling death of informants in criminal revisions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Definition of Abatement: Reviewed common-law and statutory concepts of abatement; appeal abatement under Section 394 CrPC applies only to appeals.
- Nature of Revisional Power: Under Sections 397/401 CrPC, revision is a discretionary supervisory jurisdiction, not a statutory right that abates on death.
- Precedent Analysis: In Praban Kumar Mitra, the Court held that once revision is admitted, it must be heard even if the petitioner dies; Honnaiah confirmed broad locus for revisions and suo motu exercise.
- Distinction from Appeals: Since no provision for abatement or substitution exists in Chapter XXXII (revision), appeal abatement rules do not govern revisions.
- Role of Victim: To prevent abuse and ensure effective supervision, a victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC may be permitted to assist the High Court after death of the original revisionist.
- Conclusion: High Court’s order abating the revision was unsustainable; revision restored; appellant allowed to assist as victim.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The appellant qualifies as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC and can continue revision.
- Criminal revision is discretionary and cannot abate on death of informant; High Court should decide merits.
State of Madhya Pradesh:
- Supports the right of victims to participate in criminal justice processes.
Respondents (Accused):
- Section 394 CrPC’s abatement applies only to appeals; no statutory provision allows substitution in revision.
- High Court correctly held that revision abated on death of the revisionist.
Factual Background
The informant’s father filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to an FIR and charge‐sheet against respondents for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 IPC. The Sessions Court discharged the accused from all offences except cheating under Section 420. The informant challenged this via Criminal Revision No. 1986/2020 in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, but died during its pendency. The High Court dismissed the revision as abated and refused the appellant’s application to assist under Section 528 BNSS (482 CrPC). The appellant challenged these orders in the Supreme Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 2(wa) CrPC: Definition of “victim” includes person who suffered loss or injury and their legal heirs.
- Section 156(3) CrPC: Power to direct registration of FIR.
- Section 394 CrPC: Abatement rules for appeals; inapplicable to revisions.
- Section 397 CrPC & Section 401 CrPC: Revisional powers and procedure; discretionary supervisory jurisdiction.
- Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC: Inherent powers to recall/demerge orders.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Both Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra and Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan concurred in the judgment; no dissenting opinion was filed.
Procedural Innovations
- Recognizes High Court’s discretion to allow a victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC to assist in revision proceedings absent a statutory substitution provision.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed