Allahabad High Court
OM PRAKASH RAI AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
Interlocutory orders of a revisional court are not amenable to interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Summary
The petitioners filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking to set aside an order dated 21 March 2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-01), Azamgarh, which had remanded a criminal case back to the trial court for fresh consideration. The original FIR alleged offences under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC, and the respondents had unsuccessfully applied for a discharge under Section 156(3) CrPC. The revisional court allowed the respondents' revision and ordered a fresh consideration, which the petitioners claimed was illegal. The State argued that the revisional order was merely interlocutory and therefore not subject to supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. The High Court examined the nature of the order and held that it was interlocutory, concluding that such orders cannot be interfered with under Article 227. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether an order of a revisional court that remands a case for fresh consideration is an interlocutory order and thus outside the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3)
- Constitution of India — s. Article 227
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304B, 498A
Subjects
- Article 227
- interlocutory order
- revisional jurisdiction
- criminal procedure
- Section 156(3) CrPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- IPC 304B
- IPC 498A
- High Court supervisory jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6737 of 2023
Om Prakash Rai And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saurabh Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., P.K. Singh, R.K.Paramhans Singh
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard Sri Anurag Dwivedi holding brief fo Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi,
learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for private respnodent and Sri
Prateek Tyagi, learned AGA for State respondent.
2. By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside
the order dated 21.3.2023 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge/ F.T.C.-01, Azamgarh in Criminal Revision No.153 of 2016 ( Anjani
Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had lodged an FIR bearing Case
Crime No. 119 of 2016 under Section 3/4 D.P. Act and Sections 304B, 498A
IPC. In the said FIR, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken
by the learned CJM Azamgarh vide it's order dated 25.11.2016 and the
respondents were summoned to face trial. It is submitted that the respondents
as a counterblast to the proceedings moved an application under Section
156(3) CrPC which was rejected by the learned CJM Azamgarh on
21.06.2016. However, the respondents challenged the same by by preferring
a Criminal Revision No. 153 of 2016 (Anjani Kumar Rai vs. State of U.P.).
The revisional court allowed the aforesaid criminal revision on 21.03.2023
by setting aside the order dated 21.06.2016 and remanded the matter back to
the learned trial court to consider the allegations afresh. Learned counsel
submitted that the order passed by the revisional court by interfering the
order dated 21.03.2023 is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned AGA submitted that impugned order passed by the revisional
A227 No. 6737 of 2023
2
court remanding the matter back for fresh consideration is an interlocutory
order and as such cannot be interfered under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The impugned order dated 21.03.2023 passed in the aforesaid Criminal
Revision No.153 of 2016 (Anjani Kumar Rai vs. State of U.P.) is
interlocutory in nature and such orders are not amenable to be interfered in
exercise of jurisdiction.
7. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
May 6, 2026
Mukesh
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…