[CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 5589-5590 OF 2025]
On December 19, 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India ruled in Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. that criminal revision petitions filed by informants continue after an informant’s death, and that legal heirs of an informant (or any other victim of the incident) may continue with such petitions. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to dismiss the criminal revision petition on the basis that it had been abated.
An application was filed by the father of the appellant for the registration of a FIR against the respondents 2 to 5 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The application was allowed, the FIR was registered, an investigation was conducted, and the police submitted their report indicting the accused under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court discharged the accused from all counts except for the Section 420 IPC count, and the father of the appellant filed Criminal Revision No. 1986 of 2020 against the order of discharge. While the revision was pending, the father died on 05.05.2021. The appellant was a witness in the police report and attempted to continue with the Criminal Revision, but the High Court declined the request on the grounds that there was no provision for substitution of the deceased and therefore dismissed it. The recall application filed by the appellant was also dismissed.
The main issue that needed answering was whether or not an individual who has informed about criminal activity can have the right to appeal against that criminal action after they have passed away, and will those who inherit the comforting benefits or those who were directly harmed as a result of the crime be able to continue the appeal process.
The appellant: is a victim under Section 2(wa) of CrPc., and therefore entitled to continue the process forward from where it left off; in addition, the case must be looked at on its own merits, with counsel or amicus assisting the court. The State: acknowledges that a victim’s right to participate in the criminal justice process. Respondents 2 – 5: Section 394 of the Cr.P.C., only applies to appeals and there is no provision for revisions; thus, a victim has entitlement to be an appellant but not a substitution for a revisionist. Further to this, the discharge order was not found to contain perverseness or illegality.
The abatement means the termination of an action without any decision on its merits. According to the Criminal law, trial abates on the death of an accused because no one could be prosecuted. But as far as an appeal by a convicted accused is concerned, a relative can continue it with leave in order to save family honour. The revisional power invested in Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and is thus exercisable suo motu with a view to preventing or rectifying miscarriage of justice; such power does not create any right in favour of a litigant. Once such a power is invoked, the same has to be heard and disposed of in accordance with law, irrespective of whether the revisionist is alive or represented by somebody else. The Court exercises the statutory function of supervising the administration of criminal justice, scrutinizing the impugned order passed by the subordinate Court to find out whether the proceedings culminating in the ultimate order suffer from any error of law, illegality or impropriety. Strict rule as to locus is not applicable, and, therefore, a third party may, if occasion arises, invoke this jurisdiction, but the Court exercises power thereunder circumspectly to avoid abuse; the definition contained in Section 2(w) may be used as a guide for determining the locus. As such, the law of abatement of appeals will not apply to the revision, and much less, at the instance of an informant. This is because where an accused files revision, it may abate upon abatement of the trial or where the sentence becomes unexecutable. There is no provision, however for substitution, nor is there any for abatement. In exercise of discretion, the court may proceed after his death, allowing assistance by a person who has no conflict of interest, and preferably, the victim with the required interest. In this case, the appellant being the son inherits an interest in the property, and thus qualifies as victim and can assist the court. The impugned orders passed by the High Court are unsustainable since the trial is pending. The Revision is restored. Appellant to assist as victim. Decide finally on merits uninfluenced by these observations.
This judgment ensures revisional powers aid justice without automatic abatement on informant’s death.