Allahabad High Court
PRITHIVIRAJ SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed; the High Court will not interfere with the interim order of the Sessions Judge.
Summary
The petitioner Prithiviraj Singh filed a petition under Article 227 challenging an interim order dated 27.03.2025 by the Sessions Judge, Kannauj, which stayed a magistrate's order dated 27.02.2025 in a criminal revision. The petitioner alleged that the Sessions Judge had violated Sections 397 and 401(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by passing the order without granting a hearing, thereby breaching natural justice. The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, contended that the order was merely interlocutory, exercised under revisional jurisdiction, and showed no illegality. The High Court examined the record and found no jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or manifest miscarriage of justice in the interim order. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere, dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, and directed the Sessions Judge to dispose of the pending revision expeditiously. The decision underscores that interim orders of this nature are not amenable to supervisory interference absent clear abuse of power.
Issues considered
- Whether the interim order of the Sessions Judge staying the magistrate's order violates Sections 397 and 401(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by denying a hearing.
- Whether the High Court can set aside an interlocutory order passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 397, 401(2)
Subjects
- Article 227
- interim order
- natural justice
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 397
- Section 401(2)
- revisional jurisdiction
- stay order
- high court supervisory jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5550 of 2025
Prithiviraj Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dileep Singh Yadav, Parvez Alam
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking to set aside the impugned order
dated 27.03.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kannauj in
Criminal Revision No. 42 of 2025 (Jyoti Prakash and others vs. Prithivi Raj
Singh and another), whereby the operation and effect of the order dated
27.02.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate have been stayed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional Court has
passed the impugned order in a cryptic manner without proper consideration
of the material available on record. It is further contended that the order has
been passed in violation of Section 397/401(2) Cr.P.C., which mandates that
no order prejudicial to the accused or other person shall be passed without
affording an opportunity of hearing. It is argued that the impugned order has
been passed without granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard,
thus violating the principles of natural justice.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the impugned order is purely
interim in nature and has been passed in the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction. It is contended that no illegality or perversity is apparent on the
face of the record warranting interference by this Court.
5. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Sessions
Judge has merely stayed the operation and implementation of the order dated
27.02.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate in the complaint case. The
criminal revision remains pending adjudication before the revisional Court.
The impugned order is thus interlocutory and does not finally determine the
A227 No. 5550 of 2025
2
rights of the parties.
6. Prima facie, nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that the
learned Sessions Judge has committed any jurisdictional error, illegality, or
material irregularity in passing the impugned interim order. Interference is
only warranted where the error is so manifest that it shocks the conscience of
the Court or results in a gross miscarriage of justice. No such ground are
established here.
7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
impugned interim order or with the revisional proceedings pending before
the learned Sessions Judge.
8. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
9. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Kannauj is directed to decide
Criminal Revision No. 42 of 2025 expeditiously, in accordance with law,
without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
February 18, 2026
I.A.Siddiqui
(Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…