Supreme Court of India
Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 5589–5590 of 2025
Judgment dated 19 December 2025
Justices Sanjay Karol & Manoj Misra
Background
- The appellant’s father, Shamshad Ali, filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking registration of an FIR against respondents 2–5 for forgery and cheating.
- FIR was registered; charges included Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120‑B, 34 IPC.
- Trial court discharged respondents from most charges, leaving only Section 420 IPC (cheating).
- Shamshad Ali challenged this discharge order in Criminal Revision before the High Court.
- During pendency, he died (May 2021). His son, Syed Shahnawaz Ali, sought to continue the revision.
- High Court rejected substitution (Feb 2024) and later dismissed recall application (Aug 2024), holding revision abated.
Issues
- Does a criminal revision abate on the death of the revisionist?
- Can a victim or legal heir continue or assist in revision proceedings?
- Was the High Court correct in dismissing the revision as abated?
Submissions
- Appellant: As legal heir and victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC, he should be allowed to continue. Revision cannot abate; once entertained, the High Court must decide on merits.
- State: Supported victim’s right to participate.
- Respondents: Pointed to Section 394 CrPC (abatement of appeals) and argued no provision exists for substitution in revision.
Court’s Discussion
- Concept of abatement: In criminal law, proceedings abate if the accused dies (trial/appeal). But revision is discretionary, supervisory jurisdiction of High Court.
- Precedents:
- Praban Kumar Mitra (1958) – revisional power is discretionary, not dependent on petitioner’s survival.
- Honnaiah T.H. (2022) – revision can be invoked even by third parties; locus is flexible.
- Principles deduced:
- Revision is not a matter of right; it is discretionary.
- Strict locus rules do not apply; court may act suo motu.
- Once revision is entertained, it should ordinarily be decided irrespective of petitioner’s death.
- Victim definition under Section 2(wa) CrPC can guide who may assist the court.
- Application here:
- Trial against accused is still pending; hence revision survives.
- On informant’s death, his son inherits property interest allegedly affected by forged deed. He qualifies as “victim.”
- Though no statutory right of substitution exists, the court can permit him to assist in furtherance of justice.
Decision
- High Court’s orders dismissing revision as abated and rejecting substitution are unsustainable.
- Revision No. 1986 of 2020 is restored before the High Court.
- Appellant (Syed Shahnawaz Ali) may assist the court as victim of the crime.
- High Court directed to decide the revision expeditiously on merits.
- Supreme Court clarified it expressed no opinion on merits of discharge order.
Key Takeaway
- Revisions under CrPC do not automatically abate on death of the revisionist.
- The High Court retains discretion to continue proceedings, especially where trial survives.
- Victims/legal heirs may be permitted to assist the court, even if formal substitution is not provided in law.
- This judgment strengthens victims’ participatory rights in criminal justice and clarifies the distinction between appeals (which can abate) and revisions (which ordinarily do not).
short NOTES PREPARED BY
R.GEETHANJALI ,SECOND YEAR LLB, MAHILA UNIVERSITY
