Disposed¶14

Mohd Alam and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2026CRLR/2554/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLR 2554 of 2026, Allahabad High Court, Manoj Bajaj J., decided 20.04.2026 — maintainability of direct criminal revision in High Court against Magistrate's discharge-dismissal order; concurrent revisional jurisdiction of Sessions Court and High Court; requirement of exceptional circumstances; BNS Ss. 115(2), 351(2), 352, 324(2); case crime no. 17 of 2025, P.S. Nagphani, Moradabad; revision disposed of with liberty to file before Sessions Court within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the accused-petitioner to file a revision petition before the Court of Sessions; if filed within the next three weeks, the same shall be decided on merits. ¶14

Mohd Alam and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2554 of 2026

¶2

Mohd Alam And 3 Others

¶3

.....Revisionist(s)

¶4

Versus
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Awdhesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 85

¶6

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶7

Petitioners- Accused have filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 passed by Additional Civil Judge Senior Division, Court No. 1/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Moradabad in Case No. 36204 of 2025, titled State vs. Mohd. Alam and others, arising out of case crime no. 17 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 324(2) B.N.S., registered at Police Station Nagphani, District Moradabad, whereby dismissing his application for discharge.

¶8

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.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

CRLR No. 2554 of 2026

¶12

¶13

within next three weeks, the same shall be decided on merits.

¶14

The revision petition is disposed of.

¶15

April 20, 2026 SY

¶16

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶17