Allahabad High Court
MOHD ALAM AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MANOJ BAJAJ
Holding
The High Court held that without showing exceptional grounds, it cannot entertain a revision petition directly and the petitioners must first seek revision before the Court of Sessions.
Summary
The accused filed a revision petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that dismissed their application for discharge under IPC sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 324(2). The High Court examined whether it could entertain the revision directly or whether the petitioners must first approach the Court of Sessions, noting that revision jurisdiction is concurrent but ordinarily must be exercised by the Sessions Court. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance justifying direct High Court intervention. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the revision, but granted the petitioners liberty to file a revision before the Sessions Court within three weeks. The revision petition was therefore disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a criminal revision petition directly in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
- Whether the petitioners are required to first approach the Court of Sessions for revision under the statutory scheme.
Subjects
- revision jurisdiction
- criminal procedure
- High Court
- court of sessions
- exceptional circumstances
- discharge application
- IPC sections
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2554 of 2026
Mohd Alam And 3 Others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Awdhesh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Petitioners- Accused have filed this revision petition to challenge
the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 passed by Additional Civil
Judge Senior Division, Court No. 1/Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate Moradabad in Case No. 36204 of 2025, titled State vs.
Mohd. Alam and others, arising out of case crime no. 17 of 2025,
under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 324(2) B.N.S., registered at
Police Station Nagphani, District Moradabad, whereby
dismissing his application for discharge.
No doubt, the impugned order is revisable, and 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-
accused for straightway invoking the revisional jurisdiction of
this Court against the impugned order passed by the Magistrate.
Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the revision petition,
however, a liberty is granted to the accused-petitioner to file the
revision petition before the Court of Sessions, and if, it is filed
CRLR No. 2554 of 2026
2
within next three weeks, the same shall be decided on merits.
The revision petition is disposed of.
April 20, 2026
SY
(Manoj Bajaj,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SWETA YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…