Disposed¶14

Smt Meena v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2025CRLR/8613/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Criminal Revision No. 8613 of 2025, Smt Meena vs State of U.P. and 4 Others, decided by Manoj Bajaj, J.; challenges CJM Rampur order dated 2.5.2025 dismissing complaint (CC 5716 of 2024) under S.203 Cr.P.C. in case under Sections 498-A, 323, 328, 302 IPC and S.3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Swar; concurrent Sessions/High Court revisional jurisdiction, no exceptional ground, revision disposed with liberty to file before Court of Sessions within three weeks for decision on merits; decision date printed as May 5, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition not entertained by the High Court; liberty granted to file a revision petition before the Court of Sessions within three weeks, which shall be decided on merits. ¶14

Smt Meena vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition not entertained by the High Court; liberty granted to file a revision petition before the Court of Sessions within three weeks, which shall be decided on merits.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should entertain the criminal revision petition filed straightway against the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., given the concurrent revisional jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions and the absence of any exceptional ground for invoking the High Court's revisional jurisdiction directly.

¶9

Court's answer

The statute confers concurrent revisional jurisdiction over the impugned order on the Court of Sessions as well as the High Court; ordinarily a litigant must avail the remedy of revision before the Court of Sessions, and the High Court's revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only under exceptional circumstances.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Since no exceptional ground was made out for straightway invoking the High Court's revisional jurisdiction against the CJM's order dated 2.5.2025, the Court was not inclined to entertain the revision petition; liberty was granted to the complainant-petitioner to file the revision before the Court of Sessions, and if filed within three weeks it shall be decided on merits.

¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Allahabad High Court) – challenge to order dated 2.5.2025 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur dismissing complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. in Complaint Case No. 5716 of 2024 (offences alleged under Sections 498-A, 323, 328, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Swar) – Held: revisional jurisdiction is concurrent in the Sessions Court and the High Court; a litigant must ordinarily first seek revision before the Sessions Court, and the High Court's revisional jurisdiction may be invoked only in exceptional circumstances; no exceptional ground having been made out, the revision was not entertained and was disposed of with liberty to approach the Court of Sessions within three weeks, such revision to be decided on merits. (Manoj Bajaj, J.)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8613 of 2025

¶2

Smt Meena

¶3

.....Revisionist(s)

¶4

Versus State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 85

¶5

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶6

Petitioner-Complainant has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order dated 2.5.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in Complaint Case No. 5716 of 2024, titled Smt. Meena Vs. Omprakash and others, under Sectinos 498-A, 323, 328, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Swar, District Rampur, whereby complaint has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

¶7

No one has appeared on behalf of petitioner. Learned A.G.A. is present.

¶8

No doubt, the impugned order dated 2.5.2025 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.

¶9

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 2.5.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶10

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 weeks, the same shall be decided on merits.

¶11

CRLR No. 8613 of 2025

¶12

¶13

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶14

The revision petition is disposed of.

¶15

May 5, 2026

¶16

P.S.Parihar

¶17