Allahabad High Court
GAURI SHANKAR SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANOJ BAJAJ
Holding
The High Court held that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the revision petition must first be filed before the Sessions Court and therefore it will not entertain the petition itself.
Summary
The petitioner Gauri Shankar Sharma filed a revision petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the dismissal of his complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code by a Judicial Magistrate. The High Court noted that revision against a magistrate’s order is concurrently within the jurisdiction of 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, granting the petitioner liberty to file a revision before the Sessions Court within three weeks, after which the merits may be decided. The petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a revision petition against a Judicial Magistrate’s order when concurrent revision jurisdiction exists with the Sessions Court.
- Whether the petitioner has shown any exceptional ground to bypass the Sessions Court and approach the High Court directly.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 203
Subjects
- revision jurisdiction
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 203
- High Court
- Sessions Court
- concurrent jurisdiction
- exceptional circumstances
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5334 of 2025
Gauri Shankar Sharma
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rahul Kumar, Ulajhan Singh Bind
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kartikey Singh
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Petitioner has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order
dated 3.7.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mathura in
Complaint Case No. 1050 of 2024, titled Gauri Shankar Sharma Vs. Santosh
Kumar and others, whereby the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. has
been dismissed.
Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of private opposite parties.
No doubt, the impugned order dated 3.7.2025 is revisable, but 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 revisioanl jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned order dated
3.7.2025 passed by the 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.
CRLR No. 5334 of 2025
2
The revision petition is disposed of.
(Manoj Bajaj,J.)
September 9, 2026
P.S.Parihar
Digitally signed by :-
POORAN SINGH PARIHAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…