Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 2(wa) CrPC.

Judgement By: Supreme Court of India

Judge/Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra

Facts

In this case, the complainant had filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court challenging the discharge of the accused. During the pendency of the revision, the complainant passed away. His legal heir applied to continue the case. However, the High Court dismissed the revision, holding that it abated due to the complainant’s death.

Key Legal Provisions

Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 2(wa) CrPC.

Issues Raised

Whether a criminal revision filed by a complainant comes to an end on the complainant’s death, and whether a legal heir can continue or assist in such proceedings.

Arguments of the Case 

The legal heir argued that a criminal revision does not abate automatically and that he should be allowed to assist the court as a victim. The opposing side argued that there is no provision for substitution in revision cases.

Judgement

The Supreme Court held that a criminal revision does not abate on the death of the complainant. It ruled that a legal heir can assist the court as a victim. The Bench stated that –

“Therefore, when revisional powers are invoked by a victim of the crime, and he dies during pendency of the revision, other victims of that crime, and he dies during pendency of the revision, other victims of that crime, who fall within the scope of its definition, as provided in Section 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C., may be allowed to assist the Court in effectively discharging its statutory function.”

The High Court’s order was set aside and the revision was restored.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.