Ashok Kumar And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another

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, (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