Allahabad High Court

ASHOK KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 27 April 2026
Bench: MANOJ BAJAJ

Holding

The High Court held that, absent exceptional circumstances, a revision petition against a magistrate's order must first be filed in the Sessions Court, and therefore it could not entertain the petition.

Summary

Ashok Kumar filed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of his Section 239 Cr.P.C discharge application in a criminal case involving alleged forgery, fraud, and conspiracy under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B. The petitioner argued that he was implicated only because he is the brother of co‑accused Suman Rani, who allegedly used a forged adoption document to claim inheritance. The High Court noted that revision against the magistrate's order is generally available to the Sessions Court and that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is to be invoked only in exceptional circumstances. Observing that the matter hinged on documentary evidence and no exceptional ground existed, the Court declined to entertain the revision directly. Instead, it directed the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court within three weeks, where the revision would be decided on merits, and disposed of the present petition.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can entertain a revision petition against a Judicial Magistrate's order under Section 239 Cr.P.C without first approaching the Sessions Court.
Whether the dismissal of the discharge application warrants revisional intervention on the ground of lack of exceptional circumstances.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 239
Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

revision jurisdiction
criminal procedure
discharge application
section 239 Cr.P.C
documentary evidence
exceptional circumstances

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 961 of 2026

Ashok Kumar And Another
                                                           .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                  :   Raj Narayan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :   Abhishek Misra, G.A.

Court No. - 85
                      HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Petitioner- Ashok Kumar has filed this revision petition to challenge the
impugned order dated 19.12.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in
Case No.29017 of 2022, titled State vs. Ashok Kumar and others, arising out
of Case crime No.0014 of 2022, under Sections 420 467, 468, 471 & 120-B
IPC, registered at Police Station Govind Nagar, District Mathura, whereby
his discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C has been dismissed.

No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner- Ashok Kumar.

A reading of the discharge application dated 16.06.2025 would show that
petitioner- Ashok Kumar prayed for discharge on the ground that it is the co-
accused Suman Rani, who had relied upon a forged transfer certificate issued
by Mahaur Vaisya Junior High School, Mathura showing her to be the
daughter of Late Purushottam Das, and by setting up a plea of valid
adoption, she claims her right to inheritance of property left behind by Late
Purushottam Das, and complainant also claims himself to be validly adopted
son of Purushottam Das. According to the accused petitioner, he is being
implicated only on the ground of criminal conspiracy being brother of
Suman Rani, but the said application has been dismissed vide order dated
19.12.2025.

A perusal of the order dated 10th February, 2026 would show that the
revision petition was originally filed by Ashok Kumar along with his sister
Suman Rani, but giving up the claim of discharge on behalf of Suman Rani,
he prayed for amendment in the memo of parties by deleting her name as
petitioner, and instead impleaded her as opposite party no.3.
                                                                                                CRLR No. 961 of 2026
                                                                     2

                                    Since, the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 is revisable, and the statute has
                                    conferred the concurrent jurisdiction of revision with the court of sessions as
                                    well as the High Court, but 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.

                                    Considering the nature of the case, which is based on documentary evidence,
                                    this Court does not find any exceptional ground to entertain the revision
                                    petition straightway before this Court.

                                    Thus, it is ordered that in case, the revisionist- petitioner files the revision
                                    petition before the Court of Sessions within next three weeks, the same shall
                                    be decided on merits without going into the issue of limitations.


                                    The revision petition is disposed of.

                                                                                                 (Manoj Bajaj,J.)

                                    April 28, 2026
                                    Raj




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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…