Sanjay vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 803 of 2026

¶3

Sanjay

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another		...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Manoj Yadadv	Yadav,	Vijay	Bahadur
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶6

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

Under challenge is the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate -IInd Jaunpur, in Case .693/2011 (State Vs. Sanjay) arising out of Case Crime 209 of 2011, U/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 L.P.C, P.S-Shahganj, District Jaunpur, whereby the discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been rejected.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that opposite party no. 2 had no locus to lodge the FIR and, therefore, the FIR itself is not maintainable. It is further contended that the declaration relating to criminal history was made due to erroneous advice tendered by the local counsel and on account of human error. According to the revisionist, a civil remedy by way of an election petition was available and, as such, the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶10

It is further submitted that the revisionist has no previous criminal conviction. Reference has been made to Section 5-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, to contend that mere pendency of a criminal case does not entail disqualification of a candidate. It is argued that since no document was forged or manipulated, no

¶11

CRLR No. 803 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, or 471 IPC is made out; however, the learned court below has erroneously rejected the discharge application.

¶14

It is next submitted that the affidavit was proforma in nature and the revisionist did not exercise due care while filling up the declaration regarding criminal history, having been advised that in the absence of any conviction, disclosure was not required. It is asserted that there was no deliberate concealment. It is also submitted that the FIR has been pending since the year 2011 and the trial has not yet commenced.

¶15

Learned counsel for the revisionist has further argued that when some of the accused approached this Court for quashing of their proceedings on the ground that as investigation continued for more than a decade therefore their fundamental right of speedy trial has been violated then this Court in their applications vide Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 21588 of 2025 (Girish Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 21594 of 2025 (Smt. Mangari Devi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 21595 of 2025 (Radhey Shyam and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) after considering the fact that there was delay of more than ten years in concluding investigation, quashed the proceedings pending against them and observation and findings recorded by this Court in above applications are equally applicable in the present case.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision, contending that the impugned order does not suffer from any manifest error of law or perversity and calls for no interference by this Court.

¶17

Having considered the submissions, this Court finds that the revisionist failed to exercise due care while filling up the declaration of criminal history is not appreciable. The revisionist has admitted the lapse, yet the order impugned herein relates to rejection of a discharge application, which is a revisable order. The scope of interference in criminal revision is limited.

¶18

The orders relied upon by the revisionist were passed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 BNSS. The

¶19

CRLR No. 803 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

nature, scope, and jurisdiction exercised therein are distinct from revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, the facts of the said cases are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case.

¶22

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.

¶23

February 4, 2026 M. Tarik

¶24

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nekpal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Agrawal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sangam Lal Aarak vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Singh Fauji and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Uttam vs State of Up and Another

Sarveer Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others