Rakesh Chandra Advocate vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rakesh Chandra Advocate vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the complainant-petitioner to file a revision petition before the Court of Sessions; if filed within three weeks, the same shall be decided on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner-complainant made out exceptional circumstances justifying direct invocation of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction against the Magistrate's order dated 07.10.2025, given the concurrent revisional jurisdiction of the court of sessions and the High Court.

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 07.10.2025 is revisable, and the statute has conferred concurrent jurisdiction of revision on the court of sessions as well as the High Court; ordinarily a litigant must first avail the remedy of revision before the court of sessions, and only under exceptional circumstances can the High Court's revisional jurisdiction be invoked.

Ratio / Principle

No exceptional ground is made out by the petitioner-complainant for straightway invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court against the Magistrate's order dated 07.10.2025.

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the complainant-petitioner to file the revision petition before the Court of Sessions; if filed within the next three weeks, the same shall be decided on merits.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision — maintainability — concurrent revisional jurisdiction of the court of sessions and the High Court — complainant challenged order dated 07.10.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah dismissing his application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. — held, ordinarily a litigant must first avail the remedy of revision before the court of sessions and only under exceptional circumstances may the High Court's revisional jurisdiction be invoked — no exceptional ground made out for straightway invoking the High Court's jurisdiction — revision petition disposed of with liberty to approach the Court of Sessions; revision to be decided on merits if filed within three weeks.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1383 of 2026

Rakesh Chandra Advocate

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Rakesh Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

.....Opposite Party(s)

Court No. - 85

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Petitioner- complainant has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Misc. Case No.1703 of 2025, titled Rakesh Chandra Advocate vs. Varisth Sahayak Samanya Clark Collectorate Etah, whereby his application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. has been dismissed.

No doubt, the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 is 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.

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 revisional jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the Magistrate.

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.

The revision petition is disposed of.

April 17, 2026

Raj

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

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