Allahabad High Court
NAGEENA YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANOJ BAJAJ
Holding
The High Court declined to entertain the revision petition and directed the petitioner to seek revision before the Sessions Court.
Summary
Nageena Yadav filed a revision petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the dismissal of her criminal complaint by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner failed to appear at the last two hearings, and no counsel was present when the case was called. The High Court noted that both the Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrent revision jurisdiction, but ordinarily a litigant must first seek revision before the Sessions Court. The Court found no exceptional circumstances justifying direct High Court intervention. Consequently, the High Court declined to entertain the revision petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file a revision before the Sessions Court within three weeks, and disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a revision petition directly against an order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate when the petitioner has not first approached the Sessions Court.
- Whether any exceptional circumstances exist that warrant the High Court's exercise of its revision jurisdiction in this case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 203
Subjects
- revision jurisdiction
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 203
- High Court
- Sessions Court
- exceptional circumstances
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8871 of 2025
Nageena Yadav
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ganesh Mani, Som Nath Pandey
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 9.10.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-III, Court No.14, Jaunpur in Misc. Case No. 1255 of 2023 ,
titled Nageena Yadav Vs. Mayshankar and others, whereby her complaint
has been dismissed under Section 203 CR.P.C..
No one had appeared on behalf of petitioner on the last two dates of
hearing. Today also, when the case is called, no one is present to represent
the petitioner.
No doubt, the impugned order dated 9.10.2025 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-complainant for
straightway invoking the revisioanl jurisdiction of this Court against the
impugned order dated 9.10.2025 passed by Additional 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
CRLR No. 8871 of 2025
2
weeks, the same shall be decided on merits.
The revision petition is disposed of.
(Manoj Bajaj,J.)
May 5, 2026
P.S.Parihar
Digitally signed by :-
POORAN SINGH PARIHAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…