Allahabad High Court

OM SHARANversusState of U.P. AND 2 Others

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA

Holding

The protest petition was not maintainable and the magistrate’s order was lawful, so the revision was dismissed.

Summary

Om Saran filed a criminal revision challenging the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Mainpuri who had dismissed his protest petition against a chargesheet in State v. Mohit under IPC sections 279 and 304‑A. The revisionist argued that the magistrate failed to appreciate the evidence, alleging that the vehicle named in the FIR, not the one identified by eyewitnesses, was involved in the accident. The State and other respondents contended that the protest petition was not maintainable under the Criminal Procedure Code or the B.N.S.S. and that the magistrate’s order was legally sound. After hearing both sides, the High Court held that the protest petition was indeed not maintainable and that the magistrate’s order did not suffer any illegality. Consequently, the revision was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the protest petition against the chargesheet is maintainable under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Whether the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in not appreciating the evidence presented.
Whether the criminal revision filed by the revisionist is maintainable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Indian Penal Code — s. 279, 304-A

Subjects

criminal revision
protest petition
chargesheet
IPC
Section 279
Section 304-A
maintainability
evidence
magistrate
High Court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4032 of 2024

Om Sharan
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Girish Chandra Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Alkesh Singh, Arun Kumar Sharma,
G.A.

Court No. - 45
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Girish Chandra
Maurya, learned counsel for the revisionist, Learned A.G.A. for State/ O.P.
No. 1, Mr. Alkesh Singh and Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for
O.P. Nos. 2 and 3.

2. Perused the record.

3. Revisionist Om Saran has approached this court by means of present
Criminal Revision assailing the judgement and order dated 21.05.2024
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1,
Mainpuri (herein after referred as "Jurisdiction Magistrate") in Criminal
Misc. Case No. 3084 of 2024 (State Vs. Mohit) arising out of Case Crime
No. 414 of 2022, under Sections 279, 304-A of I.P.C. whereby the
Jurisdictional Magistrate rejected the protest petition filed by the revisionist
/informant against the chargesheet.

4. Feeling aggrieved from that order the present criminal revision has been
preferred on the ground that the Jurisdictional Magistrate has not appreciated
the evidence brought on record. The impugned order is bad in law and is
liable to be set aside by this court.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that after investigation
chargesheet has been filed against another vehicle driver while according to
the eye witnesses the said vehicle was not involved but the vehicle
mentioned in FIR was involved in the said accident. It is thus contended by
learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is liable to be
CRLR No. 4032 of 2024
2

aside by this court invoking the power of revisional jurisdiction.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for
O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 have vehemently opposed the revision and submitted that
the protest petition against the chargesheet is not maintainable, the same
finding has been given by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The said protest
petition has not been provided in any procedural law described under Cr.P.C.
or B.N.S.S.. Therefore the impugned order does not suffer from any
illegality, it is therefore, liable to be affirmed and present criminal revision is
liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit.

7. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionist could not
over come the same, as urged the legal position by the learned A.G.A. as
well as learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 and 3.

8. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2
and 3 and also the submissions urged by learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 and
3, the present criminal revision has no force.

9. It is accordingly dismissed.

May 7, 2026
RPD
(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…