Disposed¶13

Rajendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2026CRLR/1541/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Criminal Revision No. 1541 of 2026 (CRLR), Rajendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, decided April 28, 2026 by Manoj Bajaj, J. Concerns dismissal by CJM, Bareilly of a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application for FIR registration against Manager Khushlok Hospital (Misc. Case No. 443 of 2022). Key points: concurrent revisional jurisdiction of Sessions Court and High Court; alternative remedy doctrine; High Court revision only in exceptional circumstances; disposal with liberty to file Sessions revision within three weeks, to be decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed of, not entertained by the High Court, with liberty to the complainant-petitioner to file a revision petition before the Court of Sessions within three weeks, which shall be decided on merits. ¶13

Rajendra Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner-complainant could straightaway invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court against the CJM's order dismissing his Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application, when the statute confers concurrent revisional jurisdiction on the Court of Sessions and the High Court, and whether any exceptional circumstances existed to bypass the Sessions Court remedy.

¶8

Court's answer

The statute confers concurrent jurisdiction of revision on the court of sessions as well as the High Court, and the impugned order dismissing the complainant's application is revisable.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

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

¶8

Key takeaways

No exceptional ground was made out by the petitioner-complainant for straightway invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court against the impugned order dated 14.11.2025.ratio¶9
Liberty was granted to the complainant-petitioner to file the revision petition before the Court of Sessions, and if filed within the next three weeks, the same shall be decided on merits.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Allahabad High Court) — Order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly dated 14.11.2025 in Misc. Case No. 443 of 2022 dismissing complainant's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of F.I.R. and investigation challenged directly before the High Court — Held, the statute confers concurrent revisional jurisdiction on the Court of Sessions and the High Court; a litigant must ordinarily first avail the remedy of revision before the Court of Sessions, and the High Court's revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only under exceptional circumstances — No exceptional ground made out — Revision petition disposed of with liberty to approach the Court of Sessions within three weeks, where it shall be decided on merits (Manoj Bajaj, J.).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1541 of 2026

¶2

Rajendra Kumar Sharma

¶3

.....Revisionist(s)

¶4

Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) :	Arvind Prabodh Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 85

¶6

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶7

Petitioner-Complainant has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Misc. Case No. 443 of 2022, titled Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Manager Khushlok Hospital, whereby application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by complainant for registration of F.I.R. and investigation by police in respect of alleged commission of cognizable offence has been dismissed.

¶8

No doubt, the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 is revisable, if such a complaint by complainant is dismissed, 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 14.11.2025 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. 1541 of 2026

¶12

¶13

The revision petition is disposed of.

¶14

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶15

April 28, 2026 P.S.Parihar

¶16

Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Asad vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Chandra vs State of U.P. and Another

Patiram Verma and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Savitri Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Danish vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home), Lucknow and Another

Umesh Rai and Another vs State of U.P. and Another