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 |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC abates on the death of the revisionist and whether substitution of a victim is permissible to assist the Court in revisional proceedings? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that abatement rules applicable to appeals do not apply to revisional proceedings at the instance of an informant or victim, and in absence of statutory provision for abatement or substitution, the High Court has discretion to continue and determine a revision despite the death of the revisionist. It reaffirmed that revisional power under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is discretionary and can be exercised suo motu, focusing on supervising lower courts. The definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC may guide the Court in allowing a person to assist in revisional proceedings. Once a Rule is issued, it must be heard and determined on merits regardless of the original petitioner’s death. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The informant under Section 156(3) CrPC secured registration of an FIR leading to charges under multiple IPC sections; the trial court discharged the accused from all offences except under Section 420 IPC; the informant filed a criminal revision which, upon his death, was held by the High Court to have abated; his son applied under Section 2(wa) CrPC and Section 482 BNSS to continue the revision as a victim, which was rejected; the appeals challenge those orders. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Revisional proceedings at the instance of an informant or victim do not abate on the death of that revisionist in absence of a specific abatement provision for revisions.
- Exercising revisional power under Sections 397/401 CrPC is discretionary and may be initiated suo motu or on invitation by any person with an arguable interest.
- The definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC can guide the High Court in allowing a person to assist or continue the revision in place of the deceased revisionist.
- Courts may permit other victims of the same crime to assist in revisional proceedings to effectively supervise subordinate courts and ensure justice.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court distinguished abatement of appeals under Section 394 CrPC from revisions under Sections 397/401, holding that no abatement provision exists for revisions initiated by informants.
- Revisional jurisdiction is discretionary, serves supervisory functions, and may be exercised suo motu or at the instance of third parties without strict locus requirements.
- Reliance on Praban Kumar Mitra and Honnaiah T.H. established that once a Rule in revision is issued, the Court must determine it on merits regardless of the petitioner’s death.
- Section 2(wa) CrPC’s definition of “victim” provides a principled basis for permitting a victim to assist or effectively continue a revision in the absence of statutory substitution provisions.
- The High Court was directed to restore and decide the revision on merits, allowing the appellant to assist as a victim.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- The appellant is a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC and entitled to continue the revision.
- A criminal revision, once entertained, cannot abate even if the revisionist dies.
- The High Court should have tested the impugned order on merits and provided an effective hearing.
State of Madhya Pradesh
- The State accepted the rights of victims to participate in criminal proceedings.
Respondents 2 to 5
- Section 394 CrPC’s abatement rules apply only to appeals, not revisions.
- No statutory provision permits substitution in a revision, so the revision abated on the informant’s death.
- The trial court’s discharge order was legally sound and not liable to interference.
Factual Background
The informant filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC to register an FIR, leading to charges under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 IPC. The trial court discharged the accused from all offences except Section 420 IPC and directed a Section 420 trial. The informant challenged that order in a criminal revision before the High Court and died during its pendency. His son sought to continue the revision under Section 2(wa) CrPC and Section 482 BNSS, but the High Court dismissed both the substitution and revision for abatement. The Supreme Court restored the revision and allowed the appellant to assist as a victim.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 156(3) CrPC: power to direct FIR registration.
- Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 IPC: offences originally charged.
- Section 394 CrPC: abatement of appeals (not applicable to revisions).
- Sections 397 and 401 CrPC: discretionary revisional powers of High Court.
- Section 2(wa) CrPC: definition of “victim” guiding locus in revision.
- Section 482 BNSS: inherent powers invoked for recall and substitution (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC).
Procedural Innovations
- Use of the statutory definition of “victim” to fill the gap where no formal substitution provision exists in criminal revision.
- Empowering High Courts to admit victims as assisting parties in revisions to ensure effective supervision of subordinate courts, even after the original revisionist’s death.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed