Allahabad High Court
KAMAL KUMAR THARADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MANOJ BAJAJ
Holding
The High Court declined to entertain the revision petition, directing the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court first.
Summary
The accused, Kamal Kumar Tharad, filed a revision petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging a order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, which dismissed his application for discharge and framed charges under Sections 419, 420 and 406 of the IPC. The High Court examined whether it could entertain the revision directly, noting that the statute provides concurrent revision jurisdiction to both the Sessions Court and the High Court, but ordinarily the remedy must be sought first before the Sessions Court. The petition did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstance justifying direct High Court intervention. Consequently, the 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 a magistrate's order without the petitioner first approaching the Sessions Court.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 419, 420
Subjects
- revision jurisdiction
- high court
- criminal procedure
- discharge application
- charge framing
- exceptional circumstances
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2555 of 2026
Kamal Kumar Tharad
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Janardan Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Petitioner- Accused has filed this revision petition to challenge
the impugned order dated 02.04.2026 passed by Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mau in Criminal Case No. 369 of 2016, arising out of
case crime no. 1382 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 406 I.P.C.,
registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Mau, whereby
dismissing his application for discharge, the charges against him
have been framed.
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
within next three weeks, the same shall be decided on merits.
CRLR No. 2555 of 2026
2
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…