# Nahni & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 1071
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 6131 of 2023
- **Bench:** Chawan Prakash
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nahni-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52788
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

12 All. Nahni & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1071
disqualification
is
'morality',
i.e.,
a
standard of morality is required to be
maintained by a Teacher with their
students. No doubt the petitioner has not
followed or kept high standard of morality
but there is another factor that except the
said allegation there is no other allegation
against petitioner despite he was doing job
for almost three years before the order of
termination was passed. In case petitioner
got married with complainant after their
relationship of three years, possibly no
complaint was filed. Therefore, Court finds
that morality has to be judged on further
conduct of petitioner also and since there is
no other complaint placed on record,
therefore, the Court finds that punishment
is shockingly disproportionate.

21. It is not a case of sexual
harassment, rather admittedly it is a case of
consensual relationship which continued
even after the
complainant left the
Institution for almost three years, therefore,
it may not be a case of major punishment
prescribed at Serial Nos. (iv) to (vii) of
Para 3 of Administrative Orders and
alternatively some minor punishment may
be imposed.

22. The Court further takes note that
major penalties are defined at Serial Nos. 4
to 6 of Clause 9 of the Resolution. Para 3 of
Administrative Orders under the heading of
"Disciplinary
Action,
Penalties
and
Appeal" provides major penalties at Serial
Nos. (iv) to (vii), i.e., reduction to lower
service, grade or post or to lower time scale
or to a lower stage in a time scale;
compulsory
retirement;
removal
from
service which shall not be a disqualification
for future employment in the Institution;
and, dismissal from service which shall
ordinarily be a disqualification for future
employment in the Institute as well as
minor penalties are prescribed at Serial
Nos. (i) to (iii) of same Para, i.e., censure;
withholding of increments or promotion;
and, recovery from whole or part of any
pecuniary loss caused to the Institution by
negligence or breach of orders.

23. In view of above, impugned order
dated 28.02.2006 is interfered qua to
quantum of punishment and matter is
remitted to Disciplinary Authority to pass a
fresh
order
so
far
as
quantum
of
punishment is concerned, keeping in view
of observations of this Court.

24. The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 1071
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 6131 of 2023

Nahni & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Whether a criminal revision is maintainable
against an order passed by the Magistrate under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing the police to
register an F.I.R. and investigate, at the instance
of the proposed accused against whom neither
cognizance has been taken nor process issued.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
ss.156(3), 397(2) - Revision - Direction
to register F.I.R. - Interlocutory order -
Maintainability - Proposed accused - Bar
under
Section
397(2)
-
Revision
dismissed.

Held:
1072 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The Full Bench of this Court in Father Thomas v.
State of U.P. and Another has authoritatively
held that an order of the Magistrate made in
exercise of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
directing the police to register and investigate is
not open to revision at the instance of a person
against whom neither cognizance has been
taken nor any process issued. [Paras 7-9]

It has further been held that an order under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing investigation in a
cognizable case is an interlocutory order and the
remedy of revision against such order is barred
under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. [Paras 8-9]

In the present case, the learned Magistrate
allowed the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. and directed the police to register an
F.I.R. and investigate. Since no revision lies
against such an order, the present criminal
revision
filed
by
the
proposed
accused/revisionists is not maintainable. [Paras
9-10]

Accordingly, the criminal revision was dismissed.
[Para 11]

Revision dismissed. (E-14)
Case Law Cited
Father Thomas v. State of U.P. and
Another, Criminal Revision No. 1640 of
2001 (Full Bench, decided on 22.12.2010)
- relied on; Ajay Malviya v. State of U.P.
and others, 2000 (41) ACC 435 - referred
to.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

List of Keywords
Interlocutory order; Maintainability of revision;
Direction to register F.I.R.; Proposed accused;
Bar of revision.

Case Arising From
Order
dated
30.10.2023
passed
by
the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in
Case No. 416/12 of 2023 (Manju v. Nahni and
others), whereby application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. was allowed directing registration
of F.I.R. and investigation.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist(s): Sri Rajesh Kumar Bind
For the Opposite Party(s): Learned G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chawan Prakash, J.)

1. List revised.

2.
None
present
on
behalf
of
revisionists. However, learned AGA is
present.

3. The instant revision has been filed
for setting aside the impugned order dated
03.11.2023 passed by learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in Case
No. 416/12 of 2023 (Manju Vs. Nahni and
others), whereby learned Magistrate issuing
a direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to
the police to register an FIR and to
investigate the same.

4. Brief facts of the case are that
opposite party no. 2 moved an application
under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal
Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before the A.C.J.M.,
Hathras seeking registration of FIR against
the revisionists. Learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated
30.10.2023 allowed the said application
and directed the police to register an FIR
and to investigate the same. Feeling
aggrieved the present revision has been
filed.

5. Learned AGA submits that the
present
criminal
revision
is
not
maintainable against the impugned order
passed by learned Magistrate Hathras,
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in which the
learned Magistrate allowed the application
and direct the police to register the FIR. To
support his contention, he has relied upon
the judgment of the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Father Thomas Vs.
State of U.P. and Another passed in Crl.
12 All. Nahni & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1073
Revision No.1640 of 2001 vide order
dated 22.12.2010.

6. In the present case, the opposite
party no. 2 filed an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for issuance of a
direction to the police to register an FIR.
The
learned
Magistrate
allowed
the
application and direct the police to register
an FIR. The proposed accused/revisionists
have filed the present criminal revision
challenging the said impugned order.

7. The question as to whether the order
of the Magistrate made in exercise of
powers under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C
directing the police to register and
investigate is open to revision at the
instance of a person against whom neither
cognizance has been taken nor any process
issued was subject matter of consideration
before the Full Bench in the case of Father
Thomas (Supra) wherein the following
questions had been referred.

"A. Whether the order of the
Magistrate made in exercise of powers
under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal
Procedure directing the police to register
and investigate is open to revision at the
instance of a person against whom neither
cognizance has been taken nor any process
issued?

B. Whether an order made under
Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure
is an interlocutory order and remedy of
revision against such order is barred under
Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

C. Whether the view expressed
by a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Ajay Malviya v. State of U.P and
Ors. reported in 2000(41) ACC 435 that as
an order made under Section 156(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is amenable to
revision, no writ petition for quashing an
F.I.R registered on the basis of the order
will be maintainable, is correct?"

8. The Full Bench after considering
the matter at length expressed is opinion on
the three questions which had been referred
to in the following manner :-

"A. The order of the Magistrate
made in exercise of powers under Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C directing the police to
register and investigate is not open to
revision at the instance of a person against
whom neither cognizance has been taken
nor any process issued.

B. An order made under Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order and
remedy of revision against such order is
barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

C. The view expressed by a
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Ajay Malviya Vs. State of U.P and others
reported in 2000(41) ACC 435 that as an
order made under Section 156 (3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is amenable to
revision, and no writ petition for quashing
an F.I.R registered on the basis of the order
will be maintainable, is not correct."

9. In view of the aforesaid opinion
expressed by the Full Bench, an order of
the Magistrate made in exercise of powers
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C directing the
police to register and investigate is not
open to revision at the instance of a person
against whom neither cognizance has been
taken nor any process issued. It has been
further held that an order made under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. directing a police
1074 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
officer to investigate a cognizable case is
an interlocutory order and the remedy of
revision against such order is barred under
Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C.

10. Since no criminal revision lies
against an order passed by the Magistrate in
exercise of powers under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. directing the police to register an
FIR, the present revision, filed by the
proposed
accused/revisionists,
is
not
maintainable.

11. Accordingly, the present criminal
revision stands dismissed
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 1074
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Revision No. 6594 of 2025

Sanjay Singh & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether the present criminal revision against
the order dated 17.09.2025 was maintainable
when the revisionists had already filed Criminal
Revision No. 132 of 2025 before the District and
Sessions Judge, Kannauj against the same
order; and

(ii) Whether Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025,
after having been admitted and registered,
could be dismissed as "not pressed" without
being decided on merits.

Headnotes
Criminal Procedure - Section 397(3)
Cr.P.C. / Section 438(3) B.N.S.S. - Second
revision - Concealment of material facts
- Abuse of process - Dismissal with cost
- Dismissal of admitted revision as not
pressed - Not sustainable - Restoration.

Held:

The revisionists had filed Criminal Revision No.
132 of 2025 before the learned District and
Sessions Judge, Kannauj on 24.09.2025 against
the impugned order dated 17.09.2025. The said
revision was admitted and registered, notice
was issued and date fixed. Thereafter, the
present criminal revision was prepared on
27.09.2025 and filed before the High Court on
01.10.2025 without disclosing the pendency of
the earlier revision. [Paras 17-21]

In the affidavit filed in support of the present
revision, the revisionists stated that no other
criminal revision had been filed, whereas
Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025 was already
pending before the Sessions Court. The certified
copy of the impugned order had also been filed
before the Sessions Court, despite seeking
exemption before the High Court on the ground
that it had been misplaced. These facts
amounted to concealment of material facts and
misuse of process of law. [Paras 18, 21-22]

In view of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. (corresponding
to Section 438(3) B.N.S.S.), once a revision is
filed before one forum, a second revision
against the same order is barred. Accordingly,
the present revision was held not maintainable
and was dismissed with cost of Rs. 20,000/-, to
be deposited with the High Court Legal Services
Committee. [Paras 16, 22]

As regards the order dated 07.11.2025 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No. 1, Kannauj dismissing Criminal Revision No.
132 of 2025 as "not pressed", it was held that
once a criminal revision has been admitted and
registered, there is no procedure for dismissing
it in default. Even if the revisionist is absent, the
revision must be decided on merits. [Para 23]

Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Santosh v. State of U.P., it
was held that dismissal of the admitted revision
as not pressed was not sustainable in law. The
order dated 07.11.2025 was set aside and
Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025 was restored
to its original number with direction to the