Disposed¶13

Kamal Kumar Tharad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2026CRLR/2555/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kamal Kumar Tharad v. State of U.P. and Another, Criminal Revision No. 2555 of 2026, Allahabad High Court, decided April 20, 2026 by Manoj Bajaj, J. Keywords: criminal revision; concurrent revisional jurisdiction; alternative remedy before Sessions Court; exceptional circumstances for invoking High Court jurisdiction; order framing charges; dismissal of discharge application; Sections 419, 420, 406 IPC; Chief Judicial Magistrate Mau; liberty to approach Court of Session within three weeks; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the accused-petitioner to file a revision petition before the Court of Session within three weeks, which shall be decided on merits; the present revision petition before the High Court was not entertained. ¶13

Kamal Kumar Tharad vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should entertain a criminal revision petition filed straightaway against the Magistrate's order framing charges, when the statute confers concurrent revisional jurisdiction on the Court of Session and the High Court.

¶8

Court's answer

The impugned order is revisable, and the statute has conferred concurrent jurisdiction of revision on the court of session as well as the High Court.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Ordinarily a litigant must first avail the remedy of revision before the court of session; the High Court's revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only under exceptional circumstances.

¶8

Key takeaways

On the grounds pleaded, no exceptional ground was made out for straightway invoking the High Court's revisional jurisdiction against the Magistrate's order.ratio¶9
Liberty was granted to the accused-petitioner to file the revision petition before the Court of Session; if filed within three weeks, it shall be decided on merits.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Allahabad High Court, Manoj Bajaj, J.) — Revisionist-accused challenged the order dated 02.04.2026 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau in Criminal Case No. 369 of 2016 (case crime no. 1382 of 2015, Sections 419, 420, 406 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Mau) dismissing his discharge application and framing charges. Held: the impugned order is revisable and the statute confers concurrent revisional jurisdiction on the Court of Session and the High Court; ordinarily a litigant must first seek revision before the Court of Session, and the High Court's revisional jurisdiction may be invoked only under exceptional circumstances. No exceptional ground was made out for straightway approaching the High Court. Revision petition disposed of with liberty to file revision before the Court of Session within three weeks, to be decided on merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2555 of 2026

¶2

Kamal Kumar Tharad

¶3

.....Revisionist(s)

¶4

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

¶5

Court No. - 85

¶6

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶7

Petitioner- Accused has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order dated 02.04.2026 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau in Criminal Case No. 369 of 2016, arising out of case crime no. 1382 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 406 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Mau, whereby dismissing his application for discharge, the charges against him have been framed.

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

¶11

CRLR No. 2555 of 2026

¶12

¶13

The revision petition is disposed of.

¶14

April 20, 2026 SY

¶15

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamal Kumar Tharad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kumar Tharad v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Ramkumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Jitendra Kushvaha and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Mazhar Hussain vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Kashyap vs State of U.P. and 2 Others