Allahabad High Court
SMT. PRITI SAXENAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The court held that while the delay was condoned, the charge once framed cannot be deleted and the revision was dismissed.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court heard a criminal revision filed by Smt. Priti Saxena seeking to quash a charge of bigamy under Section 494 IPC that was framed on 12‑12‑2025. The revision also included an application for condonation of delay, relying on Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner argued that the charge was defective for not specifying the date, time and place of the alleged second marriage and should be set aside. The State argued that a charge once framed cannot be deleted and that no procedural error occurred. The Court condoned the delay but held that the framed charge is not illegal and therefore dismissed the revision at the admission stage.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the criminal revision can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- Whether the charge framed under Section 494 IPC is defective for omitting the date, time and place of the alleged second marriage and can be set aside.
- Whether a charge once framed can be deleted on a criminal revision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 494
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5
Subjects
- bigamy
- criminal revision
- charge framing
- Limitation Act
- Section 494 IPC
- procedural law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 916 of 2026
Smt. Priti Saxena
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Awaneesha Kumar, Narendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
In Re: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application:-
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. on the
point of delay.
The cause shown for delay in filing of this revision seems to be sufficient,
therefore, the delay in filing this revision is condoned and the application u/s
5 Limitation Act is, hereby, allowed.
In Re: Criminal Revision
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material on record.
The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the
present revision and quash/set aside the impugned order of framing of
charge dated 12.12.2025 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 21511 of 2017 (Sachin Narula Vs.
Smt. Priti Saxena) under Section 494 I.P.C., Police Station Kaka Dev,
District Kanpur Nagar.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case a
complaint was filed by the opposite party against the revisionist of bigamy
under Section 494 I.P.C. in which summoning order was passed by the
learned trial court and thereafter charge has been framed on 12.12.2025. He
further submits that the date, time and place has not been mentioned in the
charge for performance of second marriage. In this way, the charge framed
by the learned trial court is illegal and is liable to be set aside, therefore,
request to allow the revision.
CRLRD No. 916 of 2026
2
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this
case once charge has been framed by the learned trial court it cannot be
deleted. There is no any error committed by the learned court while framing
the charge in question.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of
record, the formal charge dated 12.12.2025, it transpires that there is
allegation of second marriage against the revisionist during the period of
existence of first marriage for which complaint was filed by the opposite
party in which the summoning order was made by the learned court and the
charge under Section 494 I.P.C. has been framed that is in question. Since
the formal charge once framed cannot be deleted, therefore, there appears no
any illegality or impropriety in the order but this revision being devoid of
merit is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
May 7, 2026
Suraj Srivastav
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SURAJ SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…