Supreme Court on Abatement of Criminal Revision: Revision Does Not Abate on Death of Informant.

Headnote:

The Supreme Court held that a criminal revision does not abate upon the death of the revisionist, particularly where the revision has been filed by an informant or complainant and the main criminal proceedings continue. The Court clarified that revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is discretionary and supervisory in nature, exercisable even suo motu, and is not governed by the strict rules of locus or abatement applicable to appeals under Section 394 CrPC. The Court further held that a victim, as defined under Section 2(wa) CrPC, may be permitted to assist the revisional court even though substitution as a matter of right is not provided under the Code.

Background:

• The father of the appellant filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC leading to registration of an FIR against respondents for offences including cheating, forgery, conspiracy, and use of forged documents.

• After investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted for multiple IPC offences, but were discharged by the Sessions Court from all offences except Section 420 IPC.

• Aggrieved, the informant filed Criminal Revision No. 1986 of 2020 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

• During pendency of the revision, the informant died. The appellant (his son), who was cited as a witness, sought permission to continue the revision.

• The High Court dismissed the revision as abated and rejected the appellant’s application, holding that there is no provision for substitution in criminal revisions.

Court’s Observations:

• Nature of Revisional Jurisdiction:

1. Revisional power under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is discretionary and supervisory, intended to ensure correctness, legality, and propriety of criminal court orders.
2. Such power can be exercised suo motu and is not dependent on the identity of the revisionist.

• Abatement Not Applicable to Revisions:

1. The statutory provision for abatement under Section 394 CrPC applies only to appeals and not to revisions.
2. Once a revision is entertained, it ordinarily must be decided on merits, irrespective of the death of the revisionist, unless the nature of the proceeding itself ceases to exist.

• Distinction Based on Nature of Revision:

1. If the revision is filed by an accused and relates to an interlocutory or trial-stage order, it may abate upon the accused’s death as the main trial itself abates.
2. However, where the revision is filed by an informant or complainant, and the trial continues, the revision does not abate.

• Role of Victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC:

1. Strict rules of locus do not apply to revisions; however, to prevent abuse, the definition of “victim” may guide courts in permitting participation.
2. A victim has a legitimate interest in challenging orders adverse to prosecution and may be allowed to assist the revisional court.

• Substitution vs Assistance:

1. There is no statutory right of substitution in criminal revisions.
2. Nonetheless, revisional courts have discretion to allow a victim or legal heir to assist the court in furtherance of justice.

• Application to Present Case:

1. Since the appellant would inherit interest in the disputed property allegedly subjected to fraud, he qualifies as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC.
2. The High Court erred in dismissing the revision as abated and in refusing to allow the appellant to assist the court.

Decision:

• The appeals were allowed.

• The High Court orders dated 21.02.2024 and 31.08.2024 were set aside.

• Criminal Revision No. 1986 of 2020 was restored to the file of the High Court.

• The appellant was permitted to assist the revisional court in the capacity of a victim.

• The High Court was directed to decide the revision expeditiously, on merits, without being influenced by observations of the Supreme Court.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Sections 397 & 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Revisional jurisdiction

• Section 394, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Abatement of appeals

• Section 2(wa), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Definition of “victim”

• Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Magistrate’s power to order investigation