Kundan vs State Of U.P. And Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.- 12485 of 2025
Kundan …..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and
Another
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rama Goel Bansal, Shalini Goel
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Mayank
And the following cases connected with this leading case:
1. A227/1539/2025 Umesh Kumar Upadhayay Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others
A227/12515/2025 Mahtab Husain and another Vs. State of U.P. and 4
2.
others
3. A227/12524/2025 Aftab Husain and another Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others
A227/13115/2025 Deendayal Singh and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and
4.
another
5. A227/13746/2025 Rajiv Shukla and another Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others
6. A227/12434/2025 Smt. Hemlata Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others
7. A227/13129/2025 Ruchi Gupta and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and another
8. A227/14400/2025 Girish Das Vs. State of U.P. and another
9. A227/5149/2022 Babita Vs. The State of U P and 2 others
10. A227/13622/2025 Asvad Vs. State of U.P. and another
Court No. - 37
AFR
Reserved on:25.02.2026
Delivered on:29.05.2026
HON’BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.
1. Heard Ms. Rama Goel Bansal and Ms. Shalini Goel, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, learned Amicus Curiae,
and the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record.

2
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.- 12485 of 2025
2. The present petition has been instituted seeking to set aside the
order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No. 1, Mathura, in Criminal Revision No. 32 of 2025, titled Dhruv
Singh v. State of U.P. and Another, whereby the matter was remanded to
the trial court for fresh consideration.
3. In brief, the facts are that the petitioner approached the City
Magistrate, Mathura, with a complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C., stating
that he owns a marriage home in the name of Kundan Vatika, which
comprises rooms, a hall, and a field. The complainant states that he
constructed the marriage home on his own land. One room in the corner
of the marriage hall was given to the security guard, Dhruv Singh, who
began residing therein. The security guard now seeks to usurp the
complainant's marriage hall by claiming that he had purchased it from
Kundan Singh. The electricity and water connections are in the name of
the complainant, Kundan Singh. On receipt of the complaint, the City
Magistrate sought a report from the Inspector, P.S. Kotwali. The Inspector
submitted a report dated 15.07.2021, stating that both parties are claiming
their rights over the disputed property, that there is a likelihood of a breach
of peace, and that an untoward incident may occur between the parties.
4. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, the City
Magistrate, vide order dated 10.08.2021, directed the Police to attach the
property and hand over the same to a neutral person so as to avoid any
serious conflict between the parties. Aggrieved by the same, respondent
no. 2 moved an application on 30.09.2021 for recall of the order dated
10.08.2021. The City Magistrate, Mathura, again sought a report from the
Police, pursuant to which a fresh report dated 23.11.2024 was submitted,
stating that Civil Suit No. 874 of 2019, titled Dhruv Singh v. Kundan
Singh, is pending trial before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Mathura, and that the trial court, vide order dated 25.09.2023, directed the
parties to maintain status quo. After hearing both the parties and upon
perusal of the record, the City Magistrate, Mathura, vide order dated
26.12.2024, dismissed the application of respondent no. 2 for recall of the
order dated 10.08.2021.

3
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.- 12485 of 2025
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2024, respondent no. 2, on
07.01.2025, preferred a criminal revision along with an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, assailing the orders dated 10.08.2021 and
26.12.2024, before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mathura. The
Revisional Court, vide order dated 09.09.2025, allowed the application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and set aside the orders dated
10.08.2021 and 26.12.2024, with a direction to the City Magistrate,
Mathura, to pass a fresh order.
6. The learned Additional Sessions Court has recorded its findings in
paragraphs 18, 19, and 20 of the impugned order dated 09.09.2025,
wherein it is observed that Civil Suit No. 874 of 2019, titled Dhruv Singh
v. Kundan and Others, is pending between the parties, and that the civil
court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the substantive rights of the parties
regarding ownership and possession. Therefore, the proceedings under
Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. were held to be erroneous, and after setting aside
the orders dated 10.08.2021 and 26.12.2024, the Revisional Court directed
the City Magistrate to decide the proceedings afresh. The Revisional
Court, while recording such findings, placed reliance upon Vinay Tyagi v.
1 2
Irshad Ali , Amit Kapur v. Ramesh Chander , Ram Sumer Puri Mahant
3 4
v. State of U.P. and Others , Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey & Anr. ,
5
and Surenda Singh & Ors. v. District and Sessions Judge Kanpur & Ors .
7. The order passed by the Revisional Court is detailed, and the
Revisional Court has discussed all aspects of the case, except returning
findings on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by
respondent no. 2. There was no legal impediment before the Revisional
Court to take a final view on the matter. No reason has been recorded for
remanding the matter to the City Magistrate for a fresh decision; only
findings on the merits of the case were recorded. If the Revisional Court
had found the City Magistrate's order to be erroneous and, while recording
its own observations, had set aside the said order, it ought to have decided
1
[(2013) 5 SCC 762]
2
[(2012) 9 SCC 460]
3
[(1985) 1 SCC 427]
4
[(2000) 4 SCC 440]
5
[1996 JIC 1000]

4
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.- 12485 of 2025
the matter on merits rather than remanding it for fresh consideration. In
several petitions, a recurring issue has arisen where Revisional Courts
consistently remand matters to trial courts after recording findings on the
merits. The impugned orders are set aside as a matter of routine, and trial
courts are directed to pass fresh orders taking into account the findings
recorded by the Revisional Court. However, trial courts often pass similar
orders again, leading to repeated remands. This cycle sometimes recurs
multiple times before the matter reaches this Court. The Revisional Court,
after applying an independent mind and recording its findings, has
unnecessarily burdened the City Magistrate by remanding the matter to be
decided afresh.
8. Such a procedure is unnecessary and counterproductive. It creates
a vicious circle in which matters keep revolving between the trial court
and the Revisional Court, and on many occasions, the matter ultimately
reaches this Court either against the revisional order or against the
subsequent order passed by the trial court pursuant to such remand.
9. Upon examining the impact of this recurring practice on the
courts, this Court decided to hear all concerned parties so that the
methodology adopted by the Revisional Courts may be examined in detail.
A notice was issued to the Registrar General, with liberty to place on
record any material regarding the aforesaid practice, and it was left to the
learned Registrar General to take an informed decision in this regard.
10. Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate, has been appointed as Amicus
Curiae to assist the Court.
11. Shri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri
Sudhir Malhotra, learned counsel for the High Court, stated that it shall
always be the endeavour of the Courts to curtail litigation and not to
generate it. Any unnecessary remand gives rise to a fresh round of
6
litigation, which ought to be avoided . The Courts are already heavily
burdened; therefore, once a Court has applied its judicial mind and
6
Suvej Singh v. Ram Naresh & Ors. ; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2743; relied upon M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India, 1999 (6) SCC 237; State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh (2021) 19 SCC 706,
Krishna Dutta Awasthi v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) SCC OnLine SC 493.

5
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.- 12485 of 2025
recorded findings on the merits of the case, in consonance with the
principles laid down by the Constitutional Courts, there remains no
palpable justification for Revisional Courts to remand the matter with a
direction for a fresh decision.
12. Shri Rahul Chaudhary, learned Amicus Curiae, placing reliance
upon Section 438 BNSS, 2023 (Section 397 Cr.P.C.), submitted that the
object and scope of Section 438 BNSS, 2023 is the calling for of records
to exercise the power of revision. Section 438 BNSS, 2023 empowers the
High Court and the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the records of
any inferior criminal court in order to determine whether the sentence,
finding, or order of such inferior court is legal, correct, or proper, and
whether the proceedings of such court are regular, so as to prevent
miscarriage of justice and the perpetuation of illegality. The High Court,
while exercising criminal revisional jurisdiction under Section 442 BNSS,
2023 (Section 401 Cr.P.C.), cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one
of conviction. If the High Court believes that an acquittal was erroneous,
it would not reverse it; instead, it would remand the matter for re-
appreciation of evidence by the trial court.
12.1 The revisional jurisdiction of criminal courts constitutes an
important supervisory mechanism within the criminal justice system.
Under the provisions of the BNSS, the High Courts and Sessions Courts
are vested with revisional powers to examine the correctness, legality,
propriety, and regularity of findings, sentences, or orders passed by
subordinate criminal courts. The object of revisional jurisdiction is not to
provide another tier of appeal, but to ensure that subordinate courts act
within the bounds of law and procedure and that miscarriage of justice is
prevented.
12.2 Revisional jurisdiction is essentially discretionary and supervisory
in nature. Unlike appellate jurisdiction, a Revisional Court ordinarily does
not undertake a complete re-appreciation of evidence or substitute its own
conclusions merely because another view is possible. The power is
primarily exercised to correct jurisdictional errors, patent illegality,

6
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.- 12485 of 2025
procedural irregularity, perversity of findings, or gross miscarriage of
justice. The Revisional Court is therefore expected to exercise restraint
and intervene only where necessary in the interest of justice.
12.3 An important principle governing revisional jurisdiction is the
doctrine of finality of litigation. Judicial proceedings cannot be permitted
to continue indefinitely, as endless adjudication undermines certainty,
stability, and public confidence in the justice delivery system. Finality of
litigation is a foundational principle intended to ensure that disputes attain
a conclusive determination after due adjudication. Repeated interference
with reasoned judicial findings, particularly through unnecessary
remands, defeats this principle and prolongs litigation without sufficient
cause.
12.4 The administration of justice does not rest merely upon the
adjudication of disputes, but also upon ensuring that litigation reaches its
logical and lawful conclusion within a reasonable time. Judicial discipline
and procedural propriety demand that Courts exercise their powers in a
manner that advances finality of litigation rather than prolonging
uncertainty between the parties.
12.5 An unnecessary remand by a superior or Revisional Court often
gives rise to a fresh round of litigation, thereby reopening controversies
that have already been examined on the merits. Such remands not only
delay the delivery of justice but also impose additional financial and
procedural burdens upon the litigants. In a justice delivery system where
Courts are already facing heavy case pendency, avoidable remands
contribute further to judicial backlog and impede the effective
administration of justice.
12.6 Where a subordinate Court has applied its judicial mind to the
facts and circumstances of the case and has recorded findings on merits,
particularly after acting in consonance with the principles laid down by
the Constitutional Courts, there ordinarily remains no palpable
justification for a Revisional Court to remand the matter merely for a fresh
decision. Revisional jurisdiction is primarily supervisory and is intended

7
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.- 12485 of 2025
to correct jurisdictional errors, material irregularities, or manifest
illegality. It is not expected to routinely unsettle reasoned findings and
direct de-novo adjudication in the absence of compelling circumstances.
12.7 The power of remand must therefore be exercised sparingly and
only in cases where the ends of justice genuinely require reconsideration
of material issues that could not have been adequately addressed earlier.
Mechanical or routine remand orders defeat the principle of judicial
economy and undermine public confidence in the efficiency of the justice
system. Courts must remain conscious that justice delayed through
repeated rounds of adjudication often amounts to justice denied.
12.8 Once findings on merits have been duly recorded after proper
appreciation of evidence and applicable legal principles, the Revisional
Courts should endeavour to finally adjudicate the dispute instead of
remanding the matter unnecessarily. Such an approach alone would
uphold the principles of finality, judicial efficiency, and expeditious
dispensation of justice.
7
12.9 Learned Amicus Curiae has placed reliance , besides other
8
judgments , to make out a case that the jurisdiction of the Court under
Section 438 BNSS, 2023 can be exercised so as to examine the
correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed by the trial court or
the Court of SDM, as the case may be. The object of this provision is to
set right a patent effect or an error of jurisdiction or law. The next well
accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher Court is a
very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the
inbuilt restriction is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory
order. The order has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction should not lead to injustice ex-facie.
13. In the present case, as the matter has already been pending before
the civil court and the civil court has directed the parties to maintain status
7
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Another; (2012) 9 SCC 460
8
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Pituhuk Sreenivasa Rao; (2000) 9 SCC 537;
Jamin & another v. State of U.P. & another (2025) 3 SCC (Cri) 778;
Ram Briksh Singh and others v. Ambika Yadav and another, 2004(7) SCC 665;
Suvej Singh v. Ram Naresh & others, Civil Appeal No. 14661 of 2025;
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551

8
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.- 12485 of 2025
quo, there is no justification for remanding the matter to the City
Magistrate to decide afresh. Moreover, the suit was filed in 2019. No
effective order has been passed with respect to the possession and
ownership of the land; and as recorded in the inquiry report of the
Investigating Officer, there is an imminent threat to the life and property
of the parties. Therefore, the City Magistrate's decision to attach the
property and hand it over to a neutral third party appears to be just and
proper. Furthermore, the recall application was filed subsequent to the
institution of the suit, along with an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, by respondent no. 2.
14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Mathura, in Criminal
Revision No. 32 of 2025, titled Dhruv Singh v. State of U.P. and Another,
is set aside.
15. The present petition is allowed in the above terms.
16. In all the connected matters, a common question has arisen for
consideration before this Court. In each of the cases, the Revisional
Courts, after hearing the parties and examining the records, proceeded to
set aside the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section
164 of BNSS, 2023 [Section 145 Cr.P.C.] and/or by the Magistrates under
Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 [Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.], while
simultaneously recording findings touching upon the merits of the
controversy. Despite having undertaken such exercise, the Revisional
Courts thereafter remanded the matters back to the trial courts for fresh
adjudication in light of the observations recorded in the revisional orders.
17. However, in none of the aforesaid matters did the Revisional
Courts assign any cogent reason as to why they were unable to finally
adjudicate the controversies themselves while exercising revisional
jurisdiction. Once the Revisional Courts had examined the records, heard
the parties, and recorded findings touching upon the merits of the disputes,
the routine exercise of remanding the matters for fresh consideration ought
to have been avoided. Such remand orders, in the absence of any

9
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.- 12485 of 2025
demonstrated legal or procedural necessity, unnecessarily prolong
litigation and result in avoidable multiplicity of proceedings.
18. Accordingly, all Revisional Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh
are expected to exercise due restraint and circumspection while remanding
matters to subordinate courts for fresh consideration, particularly in
proceedings arising under Section 164 of BNSS, 2023 and Section 175(3)
of BNSS, 2023, as well as other miscellaneous proceedings of a similar
nature. The power of remand is an exception and not the rule. Even
Section 442(3) of BNSS, 2023 recognises the limited contours within
which revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised. Therefore, remand should
be resorted to only in rare and exceptional circumstances where the
Revisional Court, for reasons to be specifically recorded, finds itself
unable to adjudicate the matter finally on merits.
19. Unfortunately, a contrary practice appears to have developed in
the district courts of Uttar Pradesh whereby matters are routinely
remanded despite the Revisional Courts having already examined the
merits. Such an approach not only burdens the trial courts and the Courts
of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate with repetitive proceedings but also
contributes to unnecessary docket congestion, thereby adversely affecting
the administration of justice. This practice, therefore, deserves to be
discontinued.
20. This Court has no hesitation in observing that the routine and
repetitive practice of remanding matters, particularly after entering into
the merits of the controversy, reflects an avoidable reluctance on the part
of the Revisional Courts to finally adjudicate the issues entrusted to them.
An order of remand, unless founded upon a compelling legal or procedural
necessity, is a significant indicator either of judicial hesitancy in assuming
adjudicatory responsibility or of a lack of clarity in the understanding and
application of governing legal principles. Revisional jurisdiction is
intended to correct jurisdictional and legal errors and, wherever the record
is sufficient, the Revisional Court is not only expected but duty-bound to

10
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.- 12485 of 2025
render a conclusive adjudication rather than prolong the lis through
mechanical remands.
21. Repeated remands merely burden the judicial system and yield no
meaningful relief to litigants. The Revisional Courts are required to act
with greater sensitivity and responsibility, particularly when the trial court
records are already available before them, and even otherwise, such
records may be summoned if necessary. Unwarranted remands result in
unnecessary wastage of judicial time and ultimately defeat the cause of
justice.
22. The matters in the aforesaid cases are being remitted to the
concerned Revisional Courts with ‘the object of sensitizing judicial
officers’ to the settled principle that, once findings on merits have been
recorded upon examination of the record and hearing of the parties, it is
ordinarily unnecessary to remand the matter for fresh adjudication by the
subordinate court. It is expected that, in future, the Revisional Courts shall
adopt a more cautious, judicious, and legally sustainable approach while
exercising the power of remand, and shall resort to such course only where
compelling legal or procedural necessity so warrants.
23. For the aforesaid reasons, the orders under challenge in (1)
A-227/1539/2025- Umesh Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 5 Others;
(2) A-227/12515/2025- Mahtab Husain and Another v. State of U.P. and 4
Others; (3) A-227/12524/2025- Aftab Husain and Another v. State of U.P.
and 4 Others; (4) A-227/13115/2025- Deendayal Singh and 5 Others v.
State of U.P. and Another; (5) A-227/13746/2025- Rajiv Shukla and
Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others; (6) A-227/12434/2025- Smt.
Hemlata v. State of U.P. and 3 Others; (7) A-227/13129/2025- Ruchi
Gupta and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another; (8) A-227/14400/2025-
Girish Das v. State of U.P. and Another; (9) A-227/5149/2022- Babita v.
State of U.P. and 2 Others; and (10) A-227/13622/2025- Asvad v. State of
U.P. and Another- are hereby quashed and set aside, with a direction to the
respective Revisional Courts to pass fresh orders. In cases where the trial
court has already complied with the orders passed by the Revisional

11
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.- 12485 of 2025
Courts and this Court as well, this order shall have no bearing on such
cases.
24. Neither Shri Manish Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the
High Court, nor Shri Rahul Chaudhary, learned Amicus Curiae, has placed
before this Court any judgment or judicial precedent justifying the routine
practice of remanding matters to subordinate courts for fresh
consideration after having set aside the impugned orders.
25. I place on record my appreciation for the effective assistance
rendered and the valuable suggestions advanced by Shri Rahul Chaudhary,
learned Amicus Curiae.
26. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to forthwith circulate a
copy of this order to all learned District Judges in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. Upon receipt thereof, the learned District Judges shall convene
meetings within their respective judgeships for discussion, compliance,
and record.
27. A copy of this order shall also be transmitted to the Director,
Judicial Training and Research Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, for
necessary reference and training purposes. The Judicial Training and
Research Institute shall ensure that the aforesaid principles are
disseminated across all levels of the subordinate judiciary in the State of
Uttar Pradesh through periodic refresher programmes and workshops, so
as to sensitize judicial officers, particularly those exercising revisional
jurisdiction, to the settled legal position that remand ought to be an
exception and not the rule.
28. All the connected petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid
observations and directions.
May 29, 2026
Anil K. Sharma
(Vinod Diwakar, J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad