Disposed¶13

Imran Shah v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2026CRLR/1270/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1270 of 2026 (CRLR No. 1270 of 2026); Imran Shah v. State of U.P. and Another; Manoj Bajaj, J.; decided April 15, 2026; entertainability of criminal revision; alternative remedy before Court of Session; concurrent revisional jurisdiction; exceptional circumstances for invoking High Court jurisdiction; discharge application dismissed; charge framing; Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC; case crime no. 665 of 2021; P.S. Kotwali, District Etah; liberty to file Sessions revision within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed of as not entertained; liberty granted to the accused-petitioner to file a revision petition before the Court of Sessions within three weeks, which shall be decided on merits. ¶13

Imran Shah vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision petition, which straightway invokes the High Court's revisional jurisdiction against the Magistrate's orders dismissing discharge and framing charges, should be entertained when concurrent revisional jurisdiction lies with the Court of Session. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

Ordinarily a litigant must avail the remedy of revision before the court of sessions; the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked only under exceptional circumstances.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

On the grounds pleaded, no exceptional ground was made out by the petitioner-accused for straightway invoking the High Court's revisional jurisdiction against the Magistrate's orders.

¶8

Key takeaways

The Court was not inclined to entertain the revision petition, but granted the accused-petitioner liberty to file a revision petition before the Court of Sessions; if filed within three weeks, it shall be decided on merits.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Allahabad High Court, Manoj Bajaj, J.) against orders dated 07.08.2025 and 04.10.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, dismissing the accused's discharge application and framing charges under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC in Criminal Case No.4672 of 2023 (case crime no. 665 of 2021, P.S. Kotwali, District Etah). Held: revisional jurisdiction is concurrently vested in the Court of Session and the High Court; a litigant must ordinarily first seek revision before the Court of Session, and the High Court's revisional jurisdiction is available only under exceptional circumstances. No exceptional ground having been made out, the revision petition was disposed of with liberty to file revision before the Court of Sessions within three weeks, to be decided on merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1270 of 2026

¶2

Imran Shah

¶3

.....Revisionist(s)

¶4

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Anand Kumar Pandey, Bharti	Kamlesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 85

¶5

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶6

Petitioner- Accused has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned orders dated 07.08.2025 & 4.10.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Criminal Case No.4672 of 2023, titled State vs. Imran and others , arising out of case crime no. 665 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Etah, whereby dismissing his application for discharge, the charges against him have been framed.

¶7

No doubt, both the impugned orders are revisable, and 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.

¶8

A perusal of the grounds pleaded in the revision petition would show that no exceptional ground is made out by the petitioner- accused for straightway invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned orders passed by the Magistrate.

¶9

Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the revision petition, however, a liberty is granted to the accused-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.

¶10

CRLR No. 1270 of 2026

¶11

¶12

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶13

The revision petition is disposed of.

¶14

April 15, 2026 Raj

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad