Dismissed¶8

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

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2026CRLR/877/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court criminal revision dismissed for want of maintainability; direct invocation of High Court revisional jurisdiction against CJM Bijnor order not permitted absent exceptional circumstances; alternate remedy before Court of Sessions with three weeks' liberty; application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S.; Abrar Ahmad @ Mohd Abrar v. State of U.P.; Manoj Bajaj, J.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the complainant-petitioner to file a revision petition before the Court of Sessions within three weeks; if so filed, it shall be decided on merits. ¶8

Abrar Ahmad @ Mohd Abrar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should entertain the criminal revision petition directly against the Magistrate's order when the statute confers concurrent revisional jurisdiction on the court of sessions and the High Court, i.e., whether exceptional circumstances exist for straightway invoking the High Court's revisional jurisdiction.

¶6

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.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

No exceptional ground was made out by the petitioner-complainant for straightway invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court against the Magistrate's order, so the Court was not inclined to entertain the revision petition.

¶7

Key takeaways

Liberty was granted to the complainant-petitioner to file the revision petition before the Court of Sessions, and if filed within three weeks, it shall be decided on merits.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Allahabad High Court, Manoj Bajaj, J., April 9, 2026) - Revisionist challenged the order dated 09.09.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor dismissing his application dated 15.07.2025 under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. Held: though the impugned order is revisable and revisional jurisdiction is concurrently vested in the court of sessions and the High Court, a litigant must ordinarily first approach the court of sessions, and the High Court's revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only under exceptional circumstances. No exceptional ground was made out for straightway invoking the High Court's jurisdiction; the revision petition was not entertained, with liberty to file revision before the Court of Sessions within three weeks, to be decided on merits if so filed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 877 of 2026

¶3

Abrar Ahmad @ Mohd Abrar		.....Revisionist(s)
	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	:	Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
Court No.- 85

¶4

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶5

Petitioner has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor in Criminal Misc. Case No.1963 of 2025, titled Abrar Ahmad vs. Anil Kumar and others, whereby his application dated 15.07.2025 under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. has been dismissed.

¶6

No doubt, the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 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.

¶7

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 9.9.2025 passed by the Magistrate.

¶8

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

¶9

April 9, 2026 Raj

¶10

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶11

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abrar Ahmad @ Mohd Abrar 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

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

Manoj and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Daduram Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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

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