Dismissed¶16

Ashok Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 May 2026A227/12474/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 12474 of 2025, Anil Kumar-X, J.: remand order for fresh decision is interlocutory and not challengeable under Article 227; petition against revisional court's order dated 22.09.2025 in Criminal Revision No. 91 of 2023 dismissed. Context: Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application dismissed as civil dispute; Order XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C. remedy argued; maintainability of Article 227 petition against interlocutory remand order.

What did the court decide?

An order remanding a matter for fresh decision is interlocutory in nature, and such orders ought not to be challenged before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; on this basis the petition was dismissed. ¶15

Ashok Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12474 of 2025

¶3

Ashok Kumar And 3 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Kailash Pati Kumar Singh	Singh Yadav, Rakesh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Bimla Prasad,	G.A., Mridul Kumar
Court No.- 89

¶6

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

¶7

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

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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,

¶11

A227 No. 12474 of 2025

¶12

¶13

(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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed .

¶17

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶18

May 6, 2026 KJ

¶19

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

Ashok Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suneel Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Farukh Alias Nargis Kinnar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shri Nath Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Abdul Salman Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash Rai and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another