Allahabad High Court
RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANOJ BAJAJ
Holding
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the revision directly in the absence of exceptional circumstances and the petitioner must approach the Sessions Court.
Summary
Petitioner Rajendra Kumar Sharma filed a revision petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, which dismissed his application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for registration of an FIR. The High Court examined whether it possessed the jurisdiction to entertain the revision directly or whether the petitioner must first approach the Sessions Court, given the concurrent jurisdiction provided by law. The Court held that, except in exceptional circumstances, the appropriate forum for such a revision is the Sessions Court. It found that the petitioner had not demonstrated any exceptional ground to bypass the Sessions Court. Consequently, the High Court declined to entertain the revision but granted the petitioner liberty to file a revision before the Sessions Court within three weeks. The revision petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Allahabad High Court can entertain a revision petition directly against the order of a Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing an application under Section 156(3) CrPC.
- Whether the petitioner has shown exceptional circumstances justifying the High Court's revisional jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3)
Subjects
- revision jurisdiction
- Section 156(3) CrPC
- FIR registration
- High Court
- Sessions Court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1541 of 2026
Rajendra Kumar Sharma
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Arvind Prabodh Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Petitioner-Complainant has filed this revision petition to challenge the
impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bareilly in Misc. Case No. 443 of 2022, titled Rajendra Kumar Sharma
Vs. Manager Khushlok Hospital, whereby application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by complainant for registration of F.I.R. and
investigation by police in respect of alleged commission of cognizable
offence has been dismissed.
No doubt, the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 is revisable, if such a
complaint by complainant is dismissed, but the statute has conferred, the
concurrent jurisdiction of revision with the court of sessions as well as
the High Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, ordinarily a
litigant must avail the remedy of revision before the court of sessions, and
only under exceptional circumstances, the revisional jurisdiction of this
Court can be invoked.
A perusal of the grounds pleaded in the revision petition would show that
no exceptional ground is made out by the petitioner-complainant for
straightway invoking the revisioanl jurisdiction of this Court against the
impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the revision petition, however,
a liberty is granted to the complainant-petitioner to file the revision
petition before the Court of Sessions, and if it is filed within next three
weeks, the same shall be decided on merits.
CRLR No. 1541 of 2026
2
The revision petition is disposed of.
(Manoj Bajaj,J.)
April 28, 2026
P.S.Parihar
Digitally signed by :-
POORAN SINGH PARIHAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…