HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31698 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State. 2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing impugned the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.1, Kannauj in Criminal Revision No.172 of 2024 (Pinki vs. State of U.P. and Others), through which the aforementioned criminal revision was allowed and learned Magistrate is hereby directed to pass a fresh order considering the observations made in the impugned order. 3. Brief facts of the case is that initially an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of opposite party no.2 against the applicants on dated 21.03.2023, which was rejected by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj vide order dated 18.04.2023. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 preferred a criminal revision before learned Session Judge, Kannauj on 16/17.11.2023 along with application under section 5 of Limitation Act challenging the order dated 18.04.2023, wherein vide order dated 05.12.2024, learned revisional court allowed the application under section 5 of Limitation Act and thereafter considered the said revision, which was later on allowed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.1, Kannauj without considering and going through the facts and circumstances of the case vide order dated 06.08.2025, which impugned the present application. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants sought the attention of this Court over the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 and pressed the following grounds for quashing of the impugned order :- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar, Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pradeep Kumar And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) (i) Learned revisional court while adjudicating the order which has been challenged in shape of Criminal Revision No.172 of 2024 traveled beyond its jurisdiction and entered into finding of facts and directed the learned Magistrate to re-consider and pass a fresh order in the light of observation as made in the preceding paragraphs before conclusion of the revision. (ii) Learned revisional court while exercising powers under section 379 Cr.P.C. is having only two issues to be dealt while refusing the order impugned, i.e., only on the ground of illegality or perversity. The word illegality and perversity has been broadly defined in the judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Chadha Vs. Smt. Asha Kumari and another [AIR 2012 SC 431] and judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nawal Kishor Gupta Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (5) ALJ 338 (All)]. (iii) So far as order which impugned the present application is concerned, the same does not comes under the ambit of revisional jurisdiction exercised the learned court concerned. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and supported the impugned order dated 06.08.2025, but he could not dispute the legal issues as mentioned by learned counsel for applicants. 6. Since there is legal issue involved in this matter and as such process to issue notice to opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with. 7. After considering the arguments raised by learned for the applicants as well as the judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Chadha (supra) and judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nawal Kishor Gupta (supra), the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.1, Kannauj in Criminal Revision No.172 of 2024 (Pinki vs. State of U.P. and Others) is hereby set-aside. 8. The instant application stands allowed accordingly. October 14, 2025 Saif NA528 No. 31698 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad