Disposed¶13

Hariom v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2026CRLR/1879/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Criminal Revision No. 1879 of 2026, decided April 24, 2026 by Manoj Bajaj, J. Hariom v. State of U.P. and 7 Others. Maintainability of criminal revision before the High Court against Magistrate's order rejecting complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. (complaint under Sections 420, 406, 504 IPC, P.S. Hariparvat, District Agra); concurrent revisional jurisdiction of Sessions Court and High Court; litigant must ordinarily first approach Sessions Court; High Court revision only in exceptional circumstances; none made out; revision disposed of with liberty to file before Sessions within three weeks, to be decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

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

Hariom vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should entertain the criminal revision petition directly against the Magistrate's order rejecting the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., given the concurrent revisional jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions and the requirement of exceptional circumstances for invoking the High Court's revisional jurisdiction.

¶7

Court's answer

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.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

No exceptional ground was made out by the petitioner for straightway invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court against the impugned order passed by the Magistrate.

¶8

Key takeaways

The Court declined to entertain the revision petition but granted the petitioner liberty to file the revision petition before the Court of Sessions within three weeks, and if so filed, it shall be decided on merits.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra rejecting a complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. — Held, although the impugned order is revisable and the statute confers concurrent revisional jurisdiction 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 the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked only under exceptional circumstances. On a perusal of the grounds in the revision petition, no exceptional ground was made out for straightway invoking the High Court's jurisdiction. The revision petition was accordingly not entertained and disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to file revision before the Court of Sessions within three weeks, which, if so filed, shall be decided on merits. (Paras 7-13)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1879 of 2026

¶2

Hariom

¶3

.....Revisionist(s)

¶4

V	ersus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Prem Vivek	Chandra Dwivedi, Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 85

¶5

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶6

Petitioner has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Agra in Criminal Complaint Case No. 4113 of 2019 CNR No. UPAG-04-011124-2019 (Hariom versus Yogesh Kumar Sharma and Others) under Sections 420, 406, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Hariparvat, DistrictAgra whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 203 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

¶7

No doubt, the impugned order 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.

¶8

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

¶9

Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the revision petition, however, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to file the revision petition before the Court of Sessions, and if, it is filed within next

¶10

CRLR No. 1879 of 2026

¶11

¶12

three weeks, the same shall be decided on merits.

¶13

The revision petition is disposed of.

¶14

April 24, 2026 SY

¶15

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶16