Allahabad High Court
SMT SAPNA SOM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANOJ BAJAJ
Holding
The High Court held that, except in exceptional circumstances, a revision petition against a Sub‑Divisional Magistrate’s order must first be filed in the Court of Sessions.
Summary
The petitioners filed a revision petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging a preliminary notice and attachment order dated 5 January 2026 issued by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Sardhna, Meerut, in a criminal case under Section 165(1) of the BNSS, 2023. The High Court examined whether it could entertain the revision directly, noting that the statute provides concurrent revision jurisdiction to both the Court of Sessions and the High Court. It reiterated the general rule that a litigant must first seek revision before the Court of Sessions, and the High Court’s jurisdiction is available only in exceptional circumstances. The court found that the petitioners had not demonstrated any such exceptional ground. Consequently, the High Court declined to entertain the revision petition, but granted the petitioners liberty to file the revision before the Court of Sessions within three weeks. The petition was therefore disposed of without merit determination.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a revision petition directly against an order of a Sub‑Divisional Magistrate without the petition first being filed in the Court of Sessions
Legislation cited
- BNSS, 2023 — s. 165(1)
Subjects
- revision jurisdiction
- high court
- sub-divisional magistrate
- concurrent jurisdiction
- exceptional circumstances
- procedural law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 379 of 2026
Smt Sapna Som And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dheeraj Singh (Bohra), Rajesh Kumar Singh,
Shubham Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Singh, Adarsh Singh, G.A.
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Petitioners have filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned preliminary
notice as well as attachment order dated 05.01.2026 passed by Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Sardhna, Meerut in Case No. 125 of 2026, titled State vs. Virendra Kumar
and others, under Section 165(1) BNSS, 2023, registered at Police Station
Pallavpuram, District Meerut.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
No doubt, the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 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 for straightway invoking the
revisional jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned order dated 05.01.2026
passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate.
Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the revision petition, however, a liberty is
granted to the 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.
The revision petition is disposed of.
May 7, 2026
Raj
(Manoj Bajaj,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAJ KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…