High Court of Gujarat

AJAY CHANDUBHAI JADHAVversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal: 39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH
Bench: HASMUKH D SUTHAR

Holding

A revision application under Section 91 of the CrPC is not maintainable and must be dismissed.

Summary

The applicants filed a criminal revision under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging an order (Exh.95) passed by a subordinate court. The High Court examined whether such a revision is maintainable in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam (2009) 5 SCC 153. Relying on that precedent, the Court held that the revision application was not maintainable. Consequently, the revision was disposed of without any examination of the merits of the underlying case. The Court also vacated the interim relief that had been granted earlier, directing the trial court to consider any permissible contentions on its own merits, free from the influence of the now‑dismissed revision.

Issues considered

Whether a revision application under Section 91 of the CrPC is maintainable against the order passed by the subordinate court.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 91

Subjects

revisionSection 91Criminal Procedure Codemaintainabilityinterim reliefHigh Court

Judgment

       R/CR.RA/110/2014                                                        ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
             SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 110 of 2014
==========================================================
               AJAY CHANDUBHAI JADHAV & ORS.
                            Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RASESH H PARIKH(3862) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR HEMANG H PARIKH(2628) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MS MONALI H. BHATT, APP PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                          Date : 27/03/2026
                                           ORAL ORDER

         Heard learned advocate for the applicants and learned APP for
respondent – State of Gujarat.
         Since by way of present revision application, the applicants have
assailed an order passed below Exh.95 under Section 91 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and as law is very well settled by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam reported in
(2009)5 SCC 153, revision application is not maintainable and is
therefore, disposed of accordingly. However, it is kept open for the
applicants to raise all permissible contentions during the trial and the
learned trial Court to consider the same on its own merits without being
inBuenced by any of the order passed in present revision application. It is
made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the case. Rule
is hereby discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated
forthwith.


                                                                       (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
   Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
   Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 27/03/2026 15:25:10




                                                  Page 1 of 1

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "revision"Sign in to search