Allahabad High Court

RAMBAHADUR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: SANJIV KUMAR

Holding

The High Court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Shahjahanpur lacked territorial jurisdiction, and therefore the order rejecting the application under Section 173(4) BNSS was lawful.

Summary

The revisionist Rambahadur Singh filed a criminal revision under Sections 438 and 448 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging a order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Shahjahanpur that rejected his application under Section 173(4) BNSS on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The revisionist argued that the offence was committed by the accused and the magistrate erred in rejecting the application. The State contended that the alleged incident occurred in District Lakhimpur Khiri and the victim died in Delhi, so Shahjahanpur court had no jurisdiction. The High Court examined the record, noted the revisionist’s own admission that the incident was outside Shahjahanpur, and concluded that the impugned order was legally sound. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision, directing the revisionist to approach the appropriate competent court for any further relief.

Issues considered

Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Shahjahanpur had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS.
Whether the rejection of the application by the magistrate was illegal or infirm.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 173(4), 438, 448

Subjects

criminal revision
territorial jurisdiction
BNSS
Section 173(4)
Section 438
Section 448

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5795 of 2026

Rambahadur Singh
                                                           .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 7 Others
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)               :   Santosh Kukmar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)            :   G.A.

Court No. - 88
                     HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist,
learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

This Criminal Revision under Section 438/448 of Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'BNSS') has been filed against impugned
order dated 22.08.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.14, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 720 of 2026, Police
Station Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur, whereby the learned Magistrate
has rejected the application filed on behalf of the revisionist under Section
173(4) BNSS.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order is not
sustainable in the eye of law because the offence was committed by the
accused and the Trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that
it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application, as such, the
same is liable to be quashed.

Per contra, learned AGA submits that there is no illegality in the
impugned order. The alleged incident occurred in District Lakhimpur
Khiri, whereas the victim died in Delhi, therefore, the court in
Shahjahanpur had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application of
the revisionist.

In view of submissions of both the parties and upon a perusal of record, it
appears that the application under Section 173(4) BNSS was rejected on
                                                                                             CRLR No. 5795 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    the ground that the alleged incident occurred outside the jurisdiction of
                                    District Shahjahanpur, therefore, due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, the
                                    application of the revisionist was rejected by the court. During the course
                                    of argument, learned counsel for the revisionist admitted that the alleged
                                    incident has occurred in District Lakhimpur Khiri and the application
                                    under Section 173(4) BNSS was filed in District Shahjahanpur, therefore,
                                    the court in District Shajahanpur had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain
                                    the application.

                                    Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no illegality or
                                    infirmity in the impugned order, however, the revisionist is at liberty to
                                    file appropriate application before the competent court for redressal of his
                                    grievance, if so advised.

                                    With the aforesaid discussion, this criminal revision is dismissed.



                                                                                              (Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Subham




Digitally signed by :-
SUBHAM KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…