Dismissed¶16

Sushil Chaurasiya and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2026CRLR/1248/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Abdul Shahid, J. (February 18, 2026), dismissed Criminal Revision No. 1248 of 2026 — Sushil Chaurasiya & 3 Others v. State of U.P. & Another — upholding the Session Judge, Jaunpur's order dated 06.11.2025 in Session Case No. 355 of 2025 (Case Crime No. 314 of 2024, Sections 191(2), 115(2), 110, 352, 351(2) B.N.S., P.S. Mariyahun, District Jaunpur). Cross-FIR No. 315 of 2024 for the same 24.10.2024, 18:30 hours incident; occurrence admitted; aggressor to be decided at trial; no mini-trial at revisional stage; charge sheet filed.

What did the court decide?

None; the criminal revision was dismissed and the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 was left undisturbed. ¶16

Sushil Chaurasiya and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1248 of 2026

¶3

Sushil Chaurasiya And 3 Others

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Nimesh Tirpathi	Kumar Shukla,	Vinod Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶6

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment order dated 06.11.2025, passed by learned Session Judge, Jaunpur in Session case No. 355 of 2025, arising out of case crime no. 314 of 2024, State of U.P. Vs. Sushil Chaurashiya @ Mintu and others, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 110, 352, 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Mariyahun, District- Jaunpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the impugned order dated 6.11.2025 is absolutely illegal. It is neither justifiable nor liable to be sustained, as such it is liable to be set aside.

¶10

The learned A.G.A. has contended that there is a cross-case; hence, the incident itself is admitted. Therefore, the question as to who was the aggressor is to be examined and decided at the stage of trial. Accordingly, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.

¶11

From a perusal of the record, it is evident that two FIRs relating to the same incident have been lodged by Opposite Party No. 2. One FIR was lodged by Opposite Party No. 2 on 25.10.2024 with respect to the incident dated 24.10.2024 and was registered as Case Crime No. 314 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 110 of B.N.S.. The time of occurrence is stated to be 18:30 hours. Another cross-FIR was also lodged on 25.10.2024 regarding the same incident dated 24.10.2024 at 18:30 hours and was registered as Case Crime No. 315 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S.

¶12

Both FIRs pertain to incidents alleged to have occurred on the same day, i.e., 24.10.2024, at the same time, i.e., 18:30 hours, and have been registered as Case Crime No. 314 of 2024 and Case Crime No. 315 of 2024,

¶13

CRLR No. 1248 of 2026

¶14

¶15

respectively. The occurrence of the incident is thus not in dispute; however, the question as to who was the aggressor is to be determined at the stage of trial.

¶16

The learned trial court has passed a well-reasoned, speaking, and detailed order. At this stage, any meticulous examination of the evidence or a minitrial would be wholly unwarranted. In particular, the fact that a cross-FIR has also been registered and that the charge sheet has been filed further supports the view that the matter requires adjudication at trial. The question as to who was the aggressor can only be determined upon appreciation of evidence during the course of trial. There is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶17

February 18, 2026

¶18

M. Tarik

¶19

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sushil Chaurasiya and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Chaurasiya and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Mohd Azeem Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonveer Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Pappu vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Aneeta vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Lavish Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Pal Singh Vs Doongar Singh and Others