The Supreme Court on Thursday stepped in to revive a criminal revision that had been declared “abated” by the Madhya Pradesh High Court after the original informant passed away mid-way. Sitting in a packed courtroom, the bench made it clear that criminal justice cannot be allowed to stall merely because the person who first knocked on the court’s door is no longer alive.
The case arose from a property dispute that later took the colour of alleged cheating and forgery, with the son of the deceased informant seeking to carry the fight forward.
Background
The dispute began when Shamshad Ali, father of the appellant Syed Shahnawaz Ali, moved a magistrate seeking registration of an FIR, alleging that certain persons had set up a fabricated sale deed to grab his property. Police investigated and filed a charge sheet for multiple offences, including cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy.
In March 2020, a sessions court discharged the accused of most charges, allowing the trial to proceed only for cheating. Dissatisfied, Shamshad Ali filed a criminal revision before the High Court. However, during its pendency, he died in May 2021.
His son then approached the High Court to continue the revision. The court declined, holding there was no provision in criminal law for substitution in a revision and declared the case abated. A subsequent plea to recall that order was also rejected, pushing the matter to the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court took a different view. The bench explained, in simple terms, that a criminal revision is not the same as an appeal. Unlike appeals, which may abate on death, a revision is a supervisory power exercised by the court to ensure justice is properly administered.
“The revisional power is discretionary and exists to correct errors of legality or propriety,” the bench observed, adding that once a court entertains a revision, it is expected to examine the challenged order on merits.
Importantly, the judges noted that strict technical rules of locus standi do not apply to criminal revisions. Referring to the definition of a “victim” under criminal law, the court said the appellant, who stood to inherit the disputed property, had a real and direct stake. “He cannot be treated as a stranger to the proceedings,” the bench remarked.
The court also clarified that while no one has an automatic right to substitution in a revision, there is equally no provision mandating abatement. Declaring the High Court’s approach too rigid, the bench said justice demands flexibility, especially where the trial against the accused is still ongoing.
Decision
Setting aside both High Court orders, the Supreme Court restored the criminal revision to the file and permitted the son of the deceased informant to assist the court as a victim. The bench directed that the revision be heard and decided expeditiously, while making it clear that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the discharge order itself.
Case Title: Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 5589–5590 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1715–1716 of 2025)
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (Revisional Jurisdiction Issue)
Decision Date: December 19, 2025