Legal Review and Analysis of Syed Shahnawaz Ali vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors 2025 INSC 1484
Case Synopsis
Syed Shahnawaz Ali vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2025 INSC 1484
Supreme Court Reaffirms the Supervisory Essence of Revisional Jurisdiction, Allows Victim's Legal Heir to Assist Court in Ensuring Justice.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Syed Shahnawaz Ali vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2025 INSC 1484 (Supreme Court of India).
2. Related Laws and Sections
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
Section 2(wa): Definition of "victim".
Section 397 read with Section 401: Powers of revision.
Section 394: Provisions for abatement of appeals.
Section 156(3): Power of magistrate to order investigation.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Facts of the Case
The Appellant's father, Shamshad Ali, initiated criminal proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC against the respondents for alleged forgery and cheating related to a property. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed. The Sessions Court discharged the accused for most offences, directing trial only for Section 420 IPC (cheating). The father filed a criminal revision before the High Court challenging this discharge order. During the revision's pendency, the father died. The Appellant (the son and a witness) applied to continue the revision. The High Court dismissed the application and the subsequent recall plea, holding that a criminal revision abates on the death of the revisionist as there is no provision for substitution.
Issues in the Judgment
Whether a criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 CrPC abates on the death of the revisionist?
Whether the legal heir of a deceased revisionist, who is also a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC, can be permitted to assist the Revisional Court?
Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning)
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's orders. The Court reasoned that:
Nature of Revisional Power: Revisional power under CrPC is a discretionary power vested in the court to supervise the administration of justice and correct illegality, incorrectness, or impropriety in subordinate court orders. It is not a right of the litigant but a duty of the court. This power can be exercised suo motu.
Distinction from Appeal: The strict rule of abatement and the need for substitution under Section 394 CrPC apply only to appeals, which are a statutory right. There is no corresponding provision for abatement in revision proceedings.
No Automatic Abatement: Following the Constitution Bench precedent in Praban Kumar Mitra vs. State of West Bengal (AIR 1959 SC 144), once a revisional court issues a Rule (entertains the revision), it must be heard and determined on merits irrespective of the petitioner's death. The revision does not automatically abate.
Role of a Victim/Legal Heir: A "victim" as defined under Section 2(wa) CrPC includes a legal heir. Such a person has a vital interest in the outcome and is a suitable person to assist the court in exercising its revisional jurisdiction to ensure justice. The Court can, in its discretion, allow such a person to assist it.
4. Core Principle of the Judgment
The Supervisory Nature of Revision and the Survivability of Proceedings
Issue and Subject Matter
This judgment authoritatively settles the law on the survivability of criminal revision proceedings upon the death of the petitioner and clarifies the role of victims/legal heirs in such proceedings, distinguishing it fundamentally from the right of appeal.
Analysis and Explanation of the Core Principle
The Supreme Court provided a principled framework to distinguish between the statutory right of appeal and the court's supervisory revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing the latter's resilience to procedural technicalities like abatement.
Revisional Power as a Judicial Duty: The Court underscored that revision is not a private remedy for the litigant but a public function of the High Court to ensure that subordinate courts act within the bounds of law. This foundational principle means the court's obligation to correct a patent error persists regardless of the original informant's status.
The "No Abatement" Doctrine for Revisions: The Court explicitly held that the doctrine of abatement does not apply to criminal revisions. It criticised the High Court for erroneously applying the principles governing appeals (under Section 394) to revisions. The death of the revisionist does not terminate the court's power or duty to examine the impugned order's legality.
Discretion to Allow Assistance, Not Substitution: The Court clarified that while there is no right to "substitution" in a revision (as there is in an appeal), the Revisional Court has the inherent discretion to permit a person with a legitimate interest to assist it. This is essential for the effective exercise of its suo motu powers. The "victim" or their legal heir, being directly affected by the crime and the subsequent discharge order, is the most appropriate person to provide this assistance.
Practical Application to the Case: The Appellant, as the son and legal heir of the deceased informant, stood to inherit the property which was the subject matter of the alleged fraud. Therefore, he squarely fell within the definition of a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC. The High Court's refusal to allow him to assist was a failure to exercise its discretion judiciously and defeated the ends of justice.
5. Final Outcome of the Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals. It set aside the High Court's orders dated 21.02.2024 and 31.08.2024. Criminal Revision No. 1986 of 2020 was restored to the file of the High Court. The Appellant was granted liberty to assist the Revisional Court in the capacity of a victim of the crime. The High Court was directed to decide the revision on merits expeditiously.
6. MCQ Questions Based on the Judgment
Question 1: According to the Supreme Court in Syed Shahnawaz Ali vs. State of MP & Ors. (2025 INSC 1484), what is the primary legal consequence of the death of a revisionist during the pendency of a criminal revision petition under Section 397 CrPC?
A. The revision petition abates automatically, similar to an appeal.
B. The legal heir has an absolute right to be substituted as the revisionist.
C. The revisional court must proceed to decide the revision on merits, as the proceedings do not abate.
D. The revision petition must be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Question 2: In the aforementioned judgment, the Supreme Court permitted the appellant (son of the deceased revisionist) to assist the Revisional Court primarily based on his status as?
A. A witness named in the police chargesheet.
B. The natural legal heir and a "victim" as defined under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.
C. A power of attorney holder of the deceased.
D. An informant who lodged a separate FIR.