Disposed¶11

Parvez Ahmad Siddiqui and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2026CRLR/1754/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Criminal Revision No. 1754 of 2026, Manoj Bajaj J., decided May 14, 2026. Charge-framing order challenged by way of criminal revision. Held: concurrent revisional jurisdiction lies with the Sessions Court and the High Court; litigant must ordinarily first approach the Sessions Court; High Court's revisional jurisdiction reserved for exceptional circumstances; none made out here. Petition disposed of with liberty to file revision before the Court of Sessions within three weeks, to be decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a revision petition before the Court of Sessions within three weeks; if so filed, it shall be decided on merits. ¶11

Parvez Ahmad Siddiqui and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1754 of 2026

¶2

Parvez Ahmad Siddiqui And 2 Others

¶3

.....Revisionist(s)

¶4

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Suneel Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 85

¶6

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶7

Petitioners have filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order dated 31.5.2025 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/FTC, Kanpur in Case No. 31326 of 2025, titled State Vs. Imtiazul Haq Siddiqui and others, whereby the charges have been framed against them.

¶8

No doubt, the impugned order dated 31.5.2025 is revisable, 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 petitioners for straightway invoking the revisioanl jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned order dated 31.5.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶10

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

The revision petition is disposed of.

¶12

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶13

May 14, 2026 P.S.Parihar

¶14

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

Parvez Ahmad Siddiqui and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvez Ahmad Siddiqui and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kush @ Kush Kumar vs State of U.P.

Sonu @ Siraj Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitu Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sajid vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajiv Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Karamveer Singh Dhillon vs State of U.P.