# Sanjay Singh & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 1074
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 6594 of 2025
- **Bench:** Abdul Shahid
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-singh-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52789
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

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
12 All. Sanjay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1075
revisionists to appear before the concerned
court. [Para 23]

The present criminal revision was dismissed with
costs; however, the earlier revision before the
Sessions Court was restored for decision on
merits. [Paras 22-23] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Santosh v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC
(Criminal) 307 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

List of Keywords
Second revision; Maintainability; Concealment of
material facts; Abuse of process; Dismissal with
cost; Restoration of revision; Decision on merits.

Case Arising From
Order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Tehsil Chhibramau, District
Kannauj
in
Computerized
Case
No.
T2025034000207389 (Shri Thakur Ji Maharaj
Virajman Mandir Village Hathin, Pargana and
Tehsil Chhibramau, District Kannauj v. Sanjay
Singh and others), under Section 164 B.N.S.S.,
Police Station Chhibramau, District Kannauj.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionists:Sri Brijesh Pratap Mishra
For Opposite Party No. 3:Sri Ashutosh Singh
For Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2: Learned
A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Shahid, J.)

1. Heard Sri B.P. Mishra, learned
counsel for the revisionists, Sri Ashutosh
Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party
no. 3 and learned A.G.A. for the opposite
party nos. 1 and 2.

2. The present criminal revision has
been filed against the impugned order dated
17.09.2025 passed by learned Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Tehsil Chhibramau, District
Kannauj in Computerized Case No. T2025034000207389 (Shri Thakur Ji Maharaj
Virajman Mandir Village Hathin, Pargana
and Tehsil Chhibramau, District Kannauj
Versus Sanjay Singh and others), under
section
164
B.N.S.S.,
Police
Station
Chhibramau, Tehsil Chhibramau, District
Kannauj.

3. Counter affidavit and rejoinder
affidavit have been exchanged.

4. The brief facts of the case are as
follows:

5. During the consolidation proceedings,
on the basis of a compromise, the Assistant
Consolidation Officer, Fatehgarh, District
Kannauj, passed an order dated 18.08.1994,
whereby Chak No. 82 and Chak No. 342
were allotted in the name of Late Baba
Mahesh Das Chela in place of Baba Sukhram
Das Chela Ram Das Vairagi as successor.
The disputed Gata No. 226 (area about 0.259
hectare), Gata No. 288 (area about 0.77
hectare), Gata No. 251 (area about 0.3970
hectare), and Gata No. 294 (area about 0.77
hectare), situated at Village Natha Nagla,
Mauja
Bhaulpur,
Pargana
and
Tehsil
Chhibramau, District Kannauj, and Gata No.
1316 (area about 0.67 hectare), Gata No.
1317 (area about 2.17 hectare), Gata No.
1318 (area about 2.06 hectare), and Gata No.
1019 (area about 1.76 hectare), total area
about 6.65 hectares, situated at Hathin Mauja
Bhaulpur, Pargana and Tehsil Chhibramau,
Police Station Chhibramau, District Kannauj,
belong to Sri Thakur Ji Maharaj Virajman
Mandir. In this regard, the Revenue Inspector
prepared the khatauni fasli for the years 1427
to 1432 (01 July 2019 to 30 June 2025) for
Gram Bhaulpur, Tehsil Chhibramau, District
Kannauj.

6. In pursuance of the aforesaid will
dated
14.08.2024,
the
revisionists
1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
constituted a registered trust deed on Estamp paper, namely, Sri Thakur Ji
Maharaj Virajman Mandir (Charitable
Trust), of Village Natha Nagla, Mauja
Bhaulpur, Post Hathin, Pargana and Tehsil
Chhibramau,
District
Kannauj,
on
15.05.2025, and the said trust deed was
thereafter registered before the SubRegistrar, Chhibramau, District Kannauj.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists
submits that on 09.07.2025, opposite party
no. 3, namely Himanshu Chauhan, son of
Ram Bharose Singh, filed an application
under Section 164 B.N.S.S. before the SubDivisional Magistrate, Tehsil Chhibramau,
District Kannauj, with a prayer that the
learned Magistrate appoint a receiver and
seize/attach
the
aforesaid
agricultural
properties belonging to Sri Thakur Ji
Maharaj Virajman Mandir, Village Hathin,
Tehsil Chhibramau, District Kannauj.

8. On 26.07.2025, after receiving the
said
application
under
Section
164
B.N.S.S.,
learned
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Tehsil Chhibramau, District
Kannauj, called for a report from the
concerned Police Station. The concerned
Police Station submitted a detailed report
on 26.07.2025.

9.
The
learned
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Chhibramau, District Kannauj,
issued notice to the revisionists, and upon
receiving the said notice, the revisionists
filed a detailed objection/reply before the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhibramau,
District Kannauj, on 03.09.2025.

10. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the revisionists that the true fact is
that paddy (rice) crops were standing on the
aforesaid agricultural land, cultivated in the
capacity of batidar, as allotted by Baba
Mahesh Das @ Mahesh Chandra during his
lifetime.

11. In pursuance of the order dated
17.09.2025, the local police of Police Station
Chhibramau and the Tehsildar, Tehsil
Chhibramau, have been attempting to
dispossess the bataidars from the disputed
agricultural land and have also illegally
attached/occupied the standing rice crops on
the said agricultural plots. Hence, the present
criminal revision has been filed before this
Court.

12. The revisionists filed this revision
before this Court on 01.10.2025 along with an
urgency application, which was received by
the State on 01.10.2025. The certified copy of
the order dated 17.09.2025 had been
misplaced, and an exemption was sought with
an undertaking that the certified copy would
be submitted if required by the Court. On the
said urgency application, which was presented
on 01.10.2025, the matter was placed before
the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, who was
pleased to consider the urgency and ordered
that the matter be listed before the concerned
Court on 02.10.2025 at 11:30 A.M.

13. The matter was placed before this
Court on 02.10.2025 and an interim order
was passed. Paragraph 10 of the interim order
dated 02.10.2025 is quoted herein below:

"10. Hence, considering the entire
aspect of the matter, it is hereby directed that
the crops, if any, standing over the land of the
aforesaid mandir shall be protected by all the
stakeholders and it should not be cut by any
stakeholder on the pretext of the impugned
order dated 17.09.2025 so that the crops may
be safe and secure."

14. The revisionists also filed an
affidavit dated 27.09.2025 of revisionist no.
12 All. Sanjay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1077
3, Omkar Singh, son of Raghuveer Singh,
in which it is specifically mentioned in
paragraph 2 that this is the first criminal
revision filed on behalf of the revisionists
under Sections 438/442 B.N.S.S., 2023
before this Court against the order dated
17.09.2025, and that no other revision has
been filed or is pending before this Court or
at the Lucknow Bench.

15. The opposite party no. 3 filed a
short counter affidavit raising a preliminary
objection
only
on
the
point
of
maintainability and prayed that this Court
be pleased to vacate the interim order dated
02.10.2025
and
dismiss
the
present
criminal revision with heavy cost for
performing such an illegal act, so that
justice may be done; otherwise, the
innocent opposite party no. 3 would suffer
irreparable loss and injury which cannot be
compensated. Opposite party no. 3 has
specifically stated in paragraph 5 that the
impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed
by
the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Chhibramau,
District
Kannauj
had
already been challenged by the present
revisionists on 24.09.2025 before the
learned District and Sessions Judge,
Kannauj by filing Criminal Revision No.
132 of 2025 (Sanjay Singh and others
versus State of U.P. and another).
Hence, the present criminal revision
against
the
same
order
is
not
maintainable before this Court. Opposite
party no. 3 has filed a copy of the memo
of Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025
(Sanjay Singh and others versus State of
U.P. and another) under Section 438
B.N.S.S., Police Station Chhibramau,
District Kannauj, dated 24.09.2025. The
certified copy of the memo of Criminal
Revision No. 132 of 2025 indicates that
it was filed against the impugned order
dated 17.09.2025.

16. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 3 further submitted that the
present criminal revision was filed before
this Court on 01.10.2025, whereas Criminal
Revision No. 132 of 2025 had already been
filed before the learned District and
Sessions Judge, Kannauj on 24.09.2025. It
is submitted by learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 3 that the revisionists
cannot file a revision before both the
Sessions Judge and the High Court at the
same time against the same order. Once a
revision is filed or decided by one forum,
the revisionists are barred from filing
another revision before the other forum
against the same order, as provided under
Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. (corresponding to
Section 438(3) B.N.S.S.).

17. The Criminal Revision No. 132 of
2025 (Sanjay Singh and others versus State
of U.P. and another) was filed before the
learned
District
and
Sessions
Judge,
Kannauj
on
24.09.2025
against
the
impugned order dated 17.09.2025. As per
the documents filed by opposite party no. 3,
the said revision was admitted and
registered on 24.09.2025, notice was
issued, and the next date fixed was
03.11.2025. The revisionists thereafter filed
a rejoinder affidavit of Chhangelal, son of
Jage Singh. It has been submitted that when
the revisionists came to know that the local
counsel had already filed a criminal
revision against the order dated 17.09.2025,
they immediately and in good faith filed an
application for withdrawal on 29.09.2025
before the learned District and Sessions
Judge, Kannauj. A copy of the withdrawal
application dated 29.09.2025 has been filed
as Annexure No. RA-1 to the affidavit. The
said application dated 29.09.2025, was
presented before the learned District and
Sessions Judge, Kannauj on 06.10.2025, as
is evident from the fact that the learned
1078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
District and Sessions Judge passed an order
on 06.10.2025 directing that it be put up on
the date fixed. As per the usual practice in
the court of the District and Sessions Judge,
if any application is filed prior to the date
fixed, the court orders that it be taken up on
the date already fixed. Accordingly, the
learned District and Sessions Judge passed
the order dated 06.10.2025. Although the
application bears two dates, i.e., 29.09.2025
and 06.10.2025, the order dated 06.10.2025
shows that the application was presented on
06.10.2025.

18. It is also pertinent to mention that
the present Criminal Revision No. 6594 of
2025, filed before this Court, was prepared
on 27.09.2025, and the supporting affidavit
sworn before the Oath Commissioner, High
Court Allahabad, is also dated 27.09.2025.
The
revisionists
filed
an
exemption
application stating that the certified copy of
the impugned order had been misplaced,
whereas the certified copy appears to have
been filed before the learned District and
Sessions Judge, Kannauj in Criminal
Revision No. 132 of 2025 on 24.09.2025.
The urgency application was allowed by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice. In the affidavit
dated 27.09.2025 filed before this Court,
the revisionists concealed the fact that they
had already filed criminal revision before
the District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj
and falsely stated that no other criminal
revision
had
been
filed.
Thus,
the
revisionists used the entire machinery of
the
High
Court
as
per
their
own
convenience by concealing material facts.

19. The revisionists filed a copy of the
order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1,
Kannauj in Criminal Revision No. 132 of
2025 (Sanjay Singh and others versus State
of
U.P.
and
another).
The
learned
Additional Sessions Judge recorded that
when the case was called out, learned
counsel for the revisionists, Sri Sarvesh
Yadav, was present, but none appeared for
the opposite parties. Learned counsel for
the revisionists endorsed on the order sheet
that he did not wish to press the criminal
revision. Hence, the criminal revision was
dismissed as not pressed.

20. In reply to paragraph 5 of the
counter affidavit of opposite party no. 3,
the revisionists, in paragraph 18 of their
rejoinder affidavit, stated that the contents
of paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the
counter affidavit are incorrect and therefore
denied. It is submitted that when the
revisionists came to know that a revision
had already been filed by the local counsel
before the learned District and Sessions
Judge, they filed the withdrawal application
on
29.09.2025
without
delay,
and
thereafter, on grounds of urgency, filed the
present revision before this Court on
01.10.2025 during
Dusshera
vacation.
Therefore, there was no bad intention to
mislead
this
Court.
However,
the
supporting affidavit in the present criminal
revision is dated 27.09.2025, which is prior
to 29.09.2025 and 06.10.2025, the dates on
which the withdrawal application was filed
before the learned District and Sessions
Judge, Kannauj.

21. In view of the above facts, reasons
and circumstances, it is categorically clear
that the revisionists filed Criminal Revision
No. 132 of 2025 (Sanjay Singh versus State
of U.P. and another) before the learned
District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj on
24.09.2025 against the impugned order
dated 17.09.2025. When the notices were
issued on 24.09.2025 and the next date was
fixed as 03.11.2025, the revisionists, on
27.09.2025,
prepared
and
sworn
the
12 All. M/S Regenovo Mobile Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow & Anr. Vs. M/S Siyogi Enterprises & Ors. 1079
affidavit in support of the present criminal
revision and filed it before this Court on
01.10.2025,
along
with
an
urgency
application, falsely seeking exemption for
filing the certified copy on the ground that
it had been misplaced, whereas the certified
copy was filed before the learned District
and
Sessions
Judge,
Kannauj
on
24.09.2025. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Chief
Justice considered the urgency and directed
listing of the revision on 02.10.2025, when
interim order was passed. Subsequently, on
06.10.2025,
the
revisionists
filed
an
application before the learned District and
Sessions Judge, Kannauj in Criminal
Revision No. 132 of 2025 seeking
withdrawal. As per practice, no order was
passed on the same date because the next
date was fixed as 03.11.2025, and the
application was ordered to be put up on the
date fixed.

22. All these facts and circumstances
clearly show that the revisionists filed the
present criminal revision before this Court
while
concealing
material
facts
and
misusing the process of law for their own
benefit, including seeking exemption from
the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Accordingly,
due to such concealment and misuse of the
legal process, the present revision is liable
to be dismissed, and it is dismissed with a
cost of Rs. 20,000/-. The cost shall be
deposited with the High Court Legal
Services Committee within 15 days.

23. As far as the order dated
07.11.2025
passed
by
the
learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1,
Kannauj in Criminal Revision No. 132 of
2025 (Sanjay Singh and others versus State
of U.P. and another) dismissing the
revision as not pressed is concerned, the
same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
The said criminal revision was duly
admitted and registered by the learned
District and Sessions Judge vide order
dated 24.09.2025. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Santosh versus State of U.P.,
(2010) 3 SCC (Criminal) 307 has held that
after admission of a criminal revision, there
is no procedure for dismissing it in default,
and even if the revisionist is absent, the
revision cannot be dismissed in default and
must be decided on merits. It is undisputed
that Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025
was admitted and registered on 24.09.2025;
therefore, it could not be dismissed as not
pressed. It must be decided on merits.
Accordingly, the order dated 07.11.2025
passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 1, Kannauj in Criminal
Revision No. 132 of 2025 is hereby set
aside. Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025
is restored to its original number. The
revisionists are directed to appear before
the concerned Court of the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Kannauj on
17.12.2025.

24. A copy of this order shall be sent
by e-mail to the learned District and
Sessions Judge, Kannauj, for compliance.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 1079
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act
1996 No.- 75 of 2024

M/S Regenvo Mobile Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow &
Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
M/S Siyogi Enterprises & Ors.
 ...Respondents