Allahabad High Court
KASHISH MITTALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
A revisional order under Section 204 CrPC must be reasoned and based on a proper evaluation of the evidence; failure to do so makes the order illegal and the petition challenging it is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Kashish Mittal, filed a miscellaneous petition under Article 227 challenging a revisional order dated 21 September 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, which had set aside a trial court order of 24 November 2023 that summoned the respondent to face prosecution under Section 500 of the IPC. The petitioner argued that the revisional order, issued under Section 204 of the CrPC, was illegal because it was rendered without any reasons and without any evaluation of the evidence or witness statements on record. The State, represented by the Attorney‑General, contended that the order was merely a remand and did not finally determine any rights, thus lacking jurisdiction for challenge. The High Court examined the record and held that a revisional order must be reasoned and based on a proper assessment of the material before it, and the failure to do so rendered the order per se illegal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the revisional order, leaving the proceedings as ordered on 21 September 2024.
Issues considered
- Whether a revisional order under Section 204 CrPC that is passed without reasons and without evaluating the evidence is illegal and can be set aside
- Whether the petitioner has locus to challenge a remand order that does not finally determine the parties' rights
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 204
- Indian Penal Code — s. 500
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 204
- Section 500
- Revisional Jurisdiction
- High Court
- Article 227
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5567 of 2025
Kashish Mittal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aanya Verma, Alok Saxena
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the private
respondent, and Sri D.K. Rai, learned A.G. for the State respondent.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to allow the
miscellaneous petition (Camera) and set aside the order dated 21.9.2024
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in
Criminal Revision No. 0449 of 2024 (Veer Singh Chauhan vs. State of U.P.
and Another), and further to set aside the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by
the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate,
Court No. 3, Ghaziabad in Criminal Complaint Case No. 454 of 2023
(Kashish Mittal vs. Veer Singh). He further prayed to allow this
miscellaneous petition and set aside the order dated 21.5.2025 passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in the complaint case, and to direct the
learned Magistrate to restore the complaint case to its original number.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated
21.9.2024 passed by the learned Revisional Court is grossly illegal and liable
to be set aside. The said order set aside the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by
the learned Trial Court in Complaint Case No. 454 of 2023 (Kashish Mittal
vs. Veer Singh), whereby the respondent was summoned to face trial for the
offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. It was contended that there was
no illegality in the order dated 24.11.2023, which was wrongly interfered
with and set aside by the learned Revisional Court. As such, the order dated
21.9.2024 is liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the
private respondent submitted that the impugned order is merely a remand
order, and the petitioner has no locus to challenge the same, as the said order
does not finally determine the rights of any of the parties.
A227 No. 5567 of 2025
2
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It appears that the order dated 21.9.2024 was passed by the learned
Revisional Court arising out of the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the
Trial Court. The order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. was passed without
assigning any reasons. Even the Revisional Court neither discussed nor
evaluated the allegations and the evidence available on record and arrived at
its conclusion without proper evaluation of the statements of the witnesses
recorded during the proceedings, which is per se illegal.
7. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.9.2024 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad, is upheld, and this petition is
dismissed.
May 12, 2026
Mukesh/Sushil
Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…