Allahabad High Court
PRIYANKAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANOJ BAJAJ
Holding
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition directly in the absence of exceptional circumstances; the petition is dismissed.
Summary
Priyanka filed a revision petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging a July 1, 2025 order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, which dismissed her application under Section 173(4) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for registration of an FIR. The petition sought direct High Court revision, arguing that the order was revisable. The Court held that while the statute provides concurrent revision jurisdiction to both the Sessions Court and the High Court, the usual rule requires a litigant to first approach the Sessions Court, and only exceptional circumstances justify direct High Court intervention. The Court found no such exceptional ground in the petition. Consequently, the revision petition was disposed, but the petitioner was given liberty to file a revision before the Sessions Court within three weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the Allahabad High Court can entertain a revision petition directly against the order of a Chief Judicial Magistrate when the statute provides concurrent jurisdiction with the Sessions Court.
- Whether the petitioner has shown any exceptional circumstance justifying bypassing the Sessions Court.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 173(4)
Subjects
- revision jurisdiction
- criminal procedure
- FIR registration
- concurrent jurisdiction
- high court jurisdiction
- exceptional circumstances
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5696 of 2025
Priyanka
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Anurag Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Petitioner has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order
dated 01.07.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in Crl.
Misc. Case No. 508 of 2025, titled Priyanka Advocate vs. Rajesh Goyal
and others, whereby application under Section 173(4) Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by complainant for registration of F.I.R. and
investigation by police in respect of alleged commission of cognizable
offence has been dismissed.
No doubt, the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 is revisable at the
instance of complainant, if such a complaint is dismissed, but the statute
has conferred 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 01.07.2025 passed by Chief Judicial 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.
CRLR No. 5696 of 2025
2
The revision petition is disposed of.
(Manoj Bajaj,J.)
September 8, 2026
Kirti
Digitally signed by :-
SMT KIRTI MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…