ASHOK KUMAR AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12474 of 2025

Ashok Kumar And 3 Others
                                                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Kailash Pati Singh Yadav, Rakesh
                                   Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : Bimla Prasad, G.A., Mridul Kumar

Court No. - 89
                     HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Amrit
Raj, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed to set aside the order dated 22.09.2025, passed in Criminal Revision
No. 91 of 2023 (Harinath Vs. State of U.P. Another), by learned Addl.
Session Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No. 4, Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., registered as Case No. 251 of 2018, was
dismissed by the learned trial court on 28.11.2018, holding that the
allegations primarily relate to a civil dispute, for which a civil suit is also
pending before the competent court. It was further observed by the
learned trial court that if there is any violation of the orders passed by the
civil court, the complainant shall approach the concerned civil court for
appropriate remedy.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegations
against the petitioner, as mentioned by the respondent in his application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., registered as Case No. 251 of 2018, prima
facie reveal that the respondent had initiated criminal prosecution instead
of availing the remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C. It was
submitted that there was no perversity in the findings recorded by the
learned trial court in the order dated 28.11.2018. However, the order
dated 28.11.2018 was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 91 of 2023,
                                                                                           A227 No. 12474 of 2025
                                                                   2


                                    (Harinath vs. State of U.P. and another), wherein the revisional court
                                    passed an order in favour of the respondent by setting aside the order
                                    dated 28.11.2018 and remanded the matter back to the trial court to pass a
                                    fresh order after considering the observations made in the revisional
                                    order. It was vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that
                                    the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the learned revisional court setting
                                    aside the order dated 28.11.2018, is per se illegal, as there was no
                                    perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial court. He,
                                    therefore, submitted that the order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Criminal
                                    Revision No. 91 of 2023 is liable to be set aside.

                                    5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the
                                    order dated 22.09.2025 is interlocutory in nature and the said order has
                                    neither adjudicated nor decided the rights of any of the parties, rather, it
                                    has only remanded the matter back to the trial court to pass a fresh order
                                    after considering the observations made in the revisional order.

                                    6. This Court is of the view that an order remanding a matter for fresh
                                    decision is interlocutory in nature and such orders ought not to be
                                    challenged before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
                                    India.

                                    7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.



                                                                                            (Anil Kumar-X,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    KJ




Digitally signed by :-
KAMARJAHAN ANSARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad