Ramnath vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1511 of 2026

Ramnath

	Versus	.....Revisionist(s)
State Of U.P. And 4 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: :	Prakash Chandra Tripathi G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 85

¶6

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶7

Petitioner- Complainant is aggrieved against the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge, Special Court, POCSO Act, Gorakhpur in Session Case No.1896 of 2024, titled State vs. Deenanath and others , under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, registered at Police Station Geeda, District Gorakhpur, whereby the application moved by accused- Pramod has been allowed and trial is remitted back before the court of Magistrate, as the charge sheet against the accused person(s) contains offences triable by the Magisterial court.

¶8

Mr. Prakash Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitionercomplainant has argued that in respect of an occurrence dated 7th September, 2021, both sides had suffered injuries, whereupon the cross cases were registered against each other by rival parties. He has argued that initially the FIR dated 8th September, 2021 was registered on the basis of a complaint by Deena Nath bearing Case Crime no.243 of 2021, against the petitioner and two others, namely Upendra and Vishal, wherein the charge sheet against the petitioner and others was filed for commission of offence of attempt to murder etc. According to the learned counsel, subsequently, the subject FIR bearing Case Crime no.391 of 2022 was registered and since the offences against the petitioner and others were triable by Sessions Court, therefore, the trial of the opposite side arising out of case crime no.391 of 2022 was also clubbed.

¶9

Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the

¶10

CRLR No. 1511 of 2026

¶11

2

¶12

judgment dated 1st September, 2025 to contend that trial arising out of case crime no. 243 of 2021, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 307/34 IPC ended in conviction of petitioner- complainant and others, whereas the cross case remained pending before the same court. He submits that the trial court has now erroneously remitted the case back before the Magistrate without assigning any reasons, therefore, the petitionercomplainant has challenged the said order dated 16.10.2025.

¶13

Upon hearing the learned counsel and considering his submissions, this Court finds that indeed in respect of occurrence dated 7th September, 2021, both sides lodged criminal cases against each other, and even if, only one side was accused of committing the offences triable by Sessions Court, as a consequence the connected cross case is also to be tried by the court of sessions, even though, the offences contained in the charge sheet were triable by the Magistrate. Once the trial commenced in both the cross cases, and the judgment delivered in one case, that could not have been a ground for remitting the cross case back before the Magistrate for trial. The impugned order dated 16.10.2025 does not at all mention the background that the cross case was initially tried along with the other case, which has been decided. The impugned order is non- speaking and without any reasons, therefore, the same is not sustainable.

¶14

Since the order does not decide the rights of the parties, therefore, this Court is not inclined to issue any notice to the other side as the order will not result any kind of prejudice, particularly when the State Government has not disputed the fact that the transfer of case before the Magistrate is after decision of the connected case.

¶15

Resultantly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge, Special Court, POCSO Act, Gorakhpur in Session Case No.1896 of 2024, titled State vs. Deenanath and others , under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, registered at Police Station Geeda, District Gorakhpur is set aside.

¶16

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶17

April 21, 2026 Raj

¶18

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

Ramnath v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramnath v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Anil Kumar Pathak vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Machkendra Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Singh vs State of Up and Another

Upendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Vinesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Nageena Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others