Allahabad High Court
SHARAD SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The order dated 16‑01‑2026 is modified to restrict re‑consideration to the stage of passing an order under Section 146(1) CrPC based solely on the evidence before the Executive Magistrate.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash an order dated 16‑01‑2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Varanasi, which had remitted the matter back to an Executive Magistrate for fresh consideration. The applicants argued that the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction and acted arbitrarily by directing a fresh decision without proper legal basis. The State opposed the application. The High Court, without delving into the merits, modified the impugned order, limiting the re‑consideration to the stage of passing an order under Section 146(1) CrPC and to be based only on the evidence before the Executive Magistrate. Consequently, the application was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by remitting the case to an Executive Magistrate for a fresh decision.
- Whether the order dated 16‑01‑2026 can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 146(1), 528
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash order
- revisional jurisdiction
- Executive Magistrate
- criminal procedure
- Section 146(1) CrPC
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5249 of 2026
Sharad Singh And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vishal Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants in
Court today is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant application has been preferred for seeking quashing of
impugned order dated 16.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge/FTC (14th Finance Commission), Varanasi in Criminal Revision
No.78 of 2023 (Dheeraj Singh and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another).
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the impugned order
passed by learned revisional court is illegal, arbitrary and against the law
since while passing the impugned order learned revisional court has crossed
its judicial limits at the time of remitting back the matter before learned
Executive Magistrate to decide afresh in the light of observation as made in
the order dated 16.01.2026.
5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through
instant application.
6. Since legal argument has been raised by learned counsel for the applicants
while challenging the impugned order and as such process to issue notice to
opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with.
7. Be that as it may, without interfering into the merits of the matter, the
impugned order dated 16.01.2026 is hereby modified to the extent that the
direction through which matter has to be re-considered only at the stage of
NA528 No. 5249 of 2026
2
passing order under section 146(1) Cr.P.C. shall be without free judicial
cautious of mind along with evidence available before learned Executive
Magistrate.
8. With the aforesaid observation, the instant application stands disposed of.
May 7, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…