Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 April, 2026
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:73681
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2160 of 2026
Dharmendra Kumar
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Kameshwar Singh, Sudhanshu Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present criminal revision under Section 438/442 B.N.S.S.,2023 has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 10.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Chitrakoot in Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2024, Awadh Bihari Bhargava Versus State of U.P. and others, under Section 397 Cr. P.C,/438 B.N.S.S., Police Station Raipura, District Chitrakoot by which learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Chitrakoot has allowed the Criminal Revision and set aside the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/A.C.J.M, Chitrakoot and remanded the case before the learned court concerned to pass the order afresh as per law.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case a first information report as Case Crime No. 540 of 2010, under Sections 342, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Raipura, District Chitrakoot was registered against the accused Om Prakash Sharma, Rajdeo Saroj, Dharmendra Kumar and Mahendra. After investigation, closure report was filed on which direction for further investigation was made by the learned trial court in pursuance to which further investigation was made and charge sheet against co-accused Om Prakash Sharma and Rajdeo Saroj was filed, and on the basis of which, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed for trial, in which trial is going on. The investigation regarding other co-accused Dharmendra Kumar and Mahendra was pending. Later on after investigation no case was found to be established against co-accused Mahendra and Dharmendra Kumar that was the reason, closure report was filed before the learned court, on which protest application was filed. The protest application was decided by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 31.05.2024 by which the learned Magistrate rejected the protest application and accepted the closure report on the ground that once cognizance of the offence was taken and case was committed for trial, the protest application in the same Case crime number was not maintainable. Against that order, Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2024 was filed by the informant side, which was decided by the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 10.02.2026 and the matter was remanded back to the learned Magistrate to decide the protest application with closure report after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and the order dated 31.05.2024 was set aside, against which this revision has been filed on the part of the present revisionist Dharmendra Kumar. He also submitted that this was the 3rd protest application moved on behalf of the informant side, which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on the ground it not being maintainable, since cognizance of the offence was once taken and case was committed for trial, therefore, no cognizance of the same office could be taken twice, this was the reason learned Magistrate rejected the application of protest and accepted the closure report. The learned Revisional Court has committed an error in passing the order dated 10.02.2026 while directing the learned Magistrate to pass order afresh on the protest application after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. He further argued that order passed by the learned Revisional Court being illegal and inappropriate, is liable to be set aside and the revision be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist based his argument on the judgment in the case of Dharam Pal Versus State of Haryana and others 2016 O Supreme (SC)129, Balveer Singh and another Versus State of Rajasthan and another 2016 0 Supreme (SC) 355, Ramakant Singh and others Versus The State of Jharkhand and another 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 1134 and Farman and others Versus State of U.P. and another 2019 0 Supreme (All) 2646.
5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case in pursuance to the order passed by the learned trial court, further investigation was made and charge sheet was filed against the co-accused Om Prakash Sharma and Rajdeo Saroj and investigation for present revisionist Dharmendra Kumar and Mahendra was pending. Later on after completing the investigation, closure report was filed before the learned Magistrate. On closure report, protest application was filed before the Court of Session, which was rejected, as closure report was pending and the learned Court of Session had no jurisdiction to decide the protest application. Thereafter, protest application was filed before the learned Magistrate where closure report was pending but the learned Magistrate dismissed the protest application on the ground that in the same case crime number, cognizance of the offence was taken by learned court and the case was already committed for trial, therefore, protest application in the same case crime number was not maintainable. But the learned trial court failed to understand that cognizance of the offence was taken for the co-accused Om Prakash Sharma and Rajdeo Saroj, against which charge sheet was filed by the investigating officer after conclusion of the investigation, but against the present revisionist, namely Dharmendra Kumar, the investigation was kept pending and later on after completing investigation, closure report was filed, therefore, there was no any cognizance of the offence for the present revisionist and other co-accused Mahendra. In this way, learned Magistrate has committed an error in passing the order holding the protest application to be not maintainable. Learned Revisional Court has considered all these facts and then passed the order dated 10.02.2026 setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. There is no illegality in the order passed by the learned revisional court. He also contended that Hon'ble Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court have observed in the aforesaid cases where the accused was same and once cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned court, but in the present case situation is different.
6.On considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. , perusal of record and order passed by the learned Magistrate as well as learned revisional court, it transpires that a first information report as Case Crime No. 540 of 2010, under Sections 342, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Raipura, District Chitrakoot was got registered. After investigation, closure report was submitted by the police on which direction for further investigation was made. In pursuance to the order for further investigation, the investigation was made which resulted into charge sheet against co-accused Om Prakash Sharma and Rajdeo Saroj. The investigation against the present revisionist, namely, Dharmendra and co-accused Mahendra was pending. There was no any charge sheet or closure report for them. After receipt of the charge sheet against Om Prakash Sharma and Rajdeo Saroj, cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Magistrate and the case was committed for trial and proceedings are going on. Thereafter, closure report in favour of the present revisionist Dharmendra Kumar and co-accused Mahendra was filed before the learned Magistrate, against which protest application was filed on the informant side before the learned court of Session, which was rejected on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to decide the protest application, since closure report was pending before the learned Magistrate, as a result, it was filed before the learned court of Magistrate. The learned Magistrate rejected the protest application on the ground that once cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Court and case was committed for trial, therefore, it had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence in the same case crime number, against which present criminal revision was filed before the court of Session. Learned Court of Session found that the cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Magistrate for co-accused Om Prakash Sharma and Rajdev Saroj, who were charge sheeted by the police after investigation, but no any order was passed on closure report against the present revisionist and the co-accused Mahendra. The closure report was pending before the learned Magistrate that was to be decided by that court only since it had jurisdiction under Section 190 Cr. P.C. to take cognizance of the offence. Protest application was also to be decided by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, erred in holding the protest application to be not maintainable on the ground that cognizance of the offence was taken once for co-accused Om Prakash Sharma and Rajdeo Saroj, those were already charge sheeted. In this way, the learned revisional court has set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and directed to decide the protest application after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties in accordance with law. The observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in the aforesaid cases are related to the cognizance of the offence against the same accused persons, but in the present case the co-accused persons are not the same but different. In this way, there appears no illegality or impropriety in the order dated 10.02.2026 but this criminal revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) April 6, 2026 T.S.