Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

DINESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The revision is dismissed for want of prosecution due to the revisionist's failure to appear.

Summary

In Criminal Revision No. 4416 of 2024, Dinesh filed a revision against the State of U.P. and another party. The revisionist's counsel, Balbir Singh and Shailendra Singh, failed to appear at the scheduled hearing on 08.04.2026 and again on the subsequent date. The opposite party, represented by G.A. and Ran Jeet Singh, highlighted this consistent non‑appearance. The court examined the record and noted that the revisionist had not shown any intention to contest the matter. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision for want of prosecution, indicating that a petition cannot proceed without the petitioner’s participation.

Issues considered

  • Whether a criminal revision can be entertained when the revisionist fails to appear before the court?

Subjects

  • Criminal Revision
  • Procedural Default
  • Non-appearance
  • Want of Prosecution
  • Allahabad High Court

Judgment

                                              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                                                     CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4416 of 2024

                                    Dinesh
                                                                                                  .....Revisionist(s)
                                                                         Versus
                                    State of U.P. and Another
                                                                                                       .....Opposite
                                                                                                             Party(s)

                                    Counsel for Revisionist(s)             :   Balbir Singh, Shailendra Singh
                                    Counsel for Opposite Party(s)          :   G.A., Ran Jeet Singh

                                    Court No. - 88
                                                         HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

                                    1. Sri Ran Jeet Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned
                                    AGA for the State are present.

                                    2. None appears to press this revision on behalf of the revisionist, even in the
                                    revised call.

                                    3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that revisionist has
                                    failed to appear before the court consistently.

                                    4. Perusal of record shows that the date is fixed in the present revision for
                                    admission and since the revisionist did not appear on 08.04.2026 and today
                                    also none appeared on behalf of the revisionist, which shows that the
                                    revisionist has not inclined to contest the revision.

                                    5. In the aforesaid circumstances, present revision is dismissed for want of
                                    prosecution.

                                    May 5, 2026
                                    VKG
                                                                                               (Achal Sachdev,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.