The Supreme Court of India has set aside orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had dismissed a criminal revision petition as abated following the death of the original revisionist (informant). The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra held that a victim of the alleged offence may be permitted to assist the court even in the absence of a statutory provision for substitution in the revision petition after the death of the original revisionist.
The case arose from allegations that the accused had fabricated a sale deed to stake a false claim over property. While the trial court had discharged the accused of several serious offences and proceeded only on cheating charges, the informant challenged the discharge before the High Court. During the pendency of the revision, the informant passed away. His son, who was also a witness in the case, sought permission to continue the revision. The High Court, however, rejected the request, holding that there was no provision for substitution in criminal revision proceedings and therefore the revision stood abated.
Hearing the appeal challenging the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court clarified that revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is discretionary and supervisory in nature, and unlike appeals, there is no statutory provision for abatement of revisions. The Court reiterated that once a revision is entertained, it ordinarily must be decided on the merits, irrespective of the death of the revisionist.
The Court opined that “once a revision is entertained the Court exercising revisional power has discretion to proceed with the revision and test the correctness, legality or propriety of the order under challenge before it, regardless of the death of the person who had invoked the revisional jurisdiction” The Bench held that although there is no vested right of substitution in criminal revision, the High Court has the discretion to permit a “victim” within the meaning of Section 2(wa) CrPC to assist the Court. Since the appellant, being the son of the deceased informant, had inherited an interest in the disputed property, he was held to be a victim with a legitimate stake in the outcome.
Setting aside the High Court’s orders, the Supreme Court restored the criminal revision to the High Court’s file and permitted the appellant to assist the revisional court as a victim, directing that the matter be decided expeditiously and on its own merits.
Appearances
Appellant- Mr. Suhail Khan, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Farid Ahmad Nizami, Adv. Mr. Vishal Raj Sehijpal, Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Ms. Talat Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Shoeb Shakeel, Adv. Ms. Vratika Mittal, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Handa, Adv. Mr. Sadiq Ali Khan, Adv.
Respondents- Mr. D. S. Parmar, A.A.G. Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Sarthak Raizada, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Chaitanya, Adv. Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Silpi S Swain, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Sriram P., AOR
