Disposed¶15

Jaishankar Shukla v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Criminal Revision – summoning order under Sections 500 & 504 IPC – maintainability

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2026CRLR/637/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Manoj Bajaj, J.) disposed of Criminal Revision No. 637 of 2026 challenging a summoning order dated 22.09.2025 passed under Sections 500 & 504 IPC in Complaint Case No.152 of 2023, holding that the Sessions Court has concurrent revisional jurisdiction and must ordinarily be approached first, the High Court being available only in exceptional circumstances; liberty granted to file revision before the Court of Sessions within three weeks, to be decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner-complainant to file a revision petition before the Court of Sessions within three weeks; if so filed, it shall be decided on merits. ¶15

Jaishankar Shukla vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 637 of 2026

Jaishankar Shukla

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Gopal Verma, Sharad Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 85

¶10

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶11

Petitioner- complainant has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj in Complaint Case No.152 of 2023, titled Jaishankar Shukla vs. Rajendra Prasad Shukla and others , whereby opposite party no.2 has been summoned only under Sections 500 & 504 IPC.

¶12

No doubt, the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 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.

¶13

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 revisional jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the Magistrate.

¶14

Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the revision petition, however, a liberty is granted to the petitioner- complainant 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.

¶15

The revision petition is disposed of.

¶16

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶17

April 24, 2026 Raj

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jaishankar Shukla v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaishankar Shukla 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

Similar cases

Abrar Ahmad @ Mohd Abrar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Irfan and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Prakash Rani and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mangla Prasad vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Jagroshan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Kusum Devi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others