Om Prakash Rai And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another

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 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.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

May 6, 2026

Mukesh