Allahabad High Court
AKHILESH KUMAR ( AKHILSH KUMAR SINGH )versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The trial court correctly rejected the revisionist’s application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as the revisionist was not an aggrieved party.
Summary
The revisionist, Akhilesh Kumar, filed a criminal revision under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to register an FIR and investigate offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC relating to a land dispute. The High Court examined whether the revisionist was an aggrieved party capable of invoking the revisional jurisdiction. It held that the revisionist neither owned nor possessed the disputed land and therefore had no legal right, title, or locus standi. Consequently, the trial court’s rejection of the Section 156(3) application was deemed proper and not illegal, perverse, or jurisdictionally erroneous. The Court dismissed the revision as lacking merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the revisionist is an aggrieved party entitled to file a revision under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for a direction to register an FIR and investigate the alleged offences
- Whether the trial court’s order is liable to be set aside on grounds of illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- criminal revision
- Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
- FIR registration
- aggrieved party
- land dispute
- jurisdiction
- dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1625 of 2026
Akhilesh Kumar ( Akhilsh Kumar Singh )
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Akhilesh Kumar, Vishal Jaiswal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. The instant criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order
dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate/Additional
Civil Judge (Junior Division)-III Bhadohi, Gyanpur, in Criminal Case
Misc. Case No. 1377 of 2023 (Akhilesh KUmar Vs. Upendra Singh),
under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Chauri,
District Bhadohi whereby the application of the revisionist under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order
passed by the learned trial court, whereby the application of the
revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected, is illegal and
liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned trial court has failed
to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and has
erroneously rejected the application moved by the revisionist seeking a
direction for registration of the FIR and investigation of the matter.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the revisionist and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the
revisionist is neither the owner nor in possession of the land in question,
i.e., the parti bhumi, and is merely a co-villager. In the absence of any
right, title, possession, or locus in respect of the said land, the revisionist
cannot be said to be a person aggrieved so as to maintain the present
CRLR No. 1625 of 2026
2
proceedings. The learned trial court, after considering the material
available on record, has rightly rejected the application filed under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not suffer from any
illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this
Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
5. Accordingly, the criminal revision lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly.
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
March 10, 2026
M. Tarik
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…