HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 916 of 2026 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. In Re: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application:- Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. on the point of delay. The cause shown for delay in filing of this revision seems to be sufficient, therefore, the delay in filing this revision is condoned and the application u/s 5 Limitation Act is, hereby, allowed. In Re: Criminal Revision Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the present revision and quash/set aside the impugned order of framing of charge dated 12.12.2025 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 21511 of 2017 (Sachin Narula Vs. Smt. Priti Saxena) under Section 494 I.P.C., Police Station Kaka Dev, District Kanpur Nagar. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case a complaint was filed by the opposite party against the revisionist of bigamy under Section 494 I.P.C. in which summoning order was passed by the learned trial court and thereafter charge has been framed on 12.12.2025. He further submits that the date, time and place has not been mentioned in the charge for performance of second marriage. In this way, the charge framed by the learned trial court is illegal and is liable to be set aside, therefore, request to allow the revision. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Awaneesha Kumar, Narendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt. Priti Saxena .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case once charge has been framed by the learned trial court it cannot be deleted. There is no any error committed by the learned court while framing the charge in question. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the formal charge dated 12.12.2025, it transpires that there is allegation of second marriage against the revisionist during the period of existence of first marriage for which complaint was filed by the opposite party in which the summoning order was made by the learned court and the charge under Section 494 I.P.C. has been framed that is in question. Since the formal charge once framed cannot be deleted, therefore, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. May 7, 2026 Suraj Srivastav CRLRD No. 916 of 2026 2 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad