Allahabad High Court
MUKESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANOJ BAJAJ
Holding
The High Court held that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, a criminal revision petition must first be filed before the Sessions Court and cannot be entertained directly by the High Court.
Summary
Mukesh filed a revision petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, which dismissed his criminal complaint against Randheer Singh and others. The petition sought to invoke the High Court's revisional jurisdiction directly. The Court examined whether the High Court could entertain the revision without the petitioner first approaching the Sessions Court, noting that revision jurisdiction is concurrent but ordinarily requires recourse to the Sessions Court unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Court found no exceptional ground in the petition and therefore declined to entertain the revision. However, it granted the petitioner liberty to file a revision before the Sessions Court within three weeks, after which the merits may be decided. The petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a criminal revision petition directly without the petitioner first approaching the Sessions Court.
- Whether the petitioner has demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying direct High Court revision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 115(2), 191(2), 316(2), 318(4), 333, 351(2), 352
Subjects
- revision jurisdiction
- Criminal Procedure Code
- High Court
- Sessions Court
- exceptional circumstances
- complaint dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 425 of 2026
Mukesh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Petitioner- complainant has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order
dated 20.11.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Complaint
Case No.238 of 2025, titled Mukesh vs. Randheer Singh and others, under Sections
191(2), 115(2), 333, 352, 351(2), 316(2), 318(4)j BNS, registered at Police Station
Aliganj, District Etah, whereby his complaint has been dismissed.
None for the petitioner.
No doubt, the impugned order dated 20.11.2025 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-complainant for straightway
invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned order dated
20.11.2025 passed by the Magistrate.
Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the revision petition, however, a liberty is
granted to the complainant-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.
(Manoj Bajaj,J.)
May 7, 2026
Raj
Digitally signed by :-
RAJ KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…