Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26213 Court No. - 15 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2668 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shine City Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. Company Thru. Managing Director Ashif Naseem Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Irfan Siddiqui,Kavish Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rohit Tripathi Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Mohammad Irfan Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rohit Tripathi, the learned counsel for the respondent- Enforcement of Directorate and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner- Shine City Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. Company through its Managing Direction Ashif Nassem has challenged an order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI, West/ED Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1421 of 2024 whereby an application filed by the petitioner for impleadment in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1421 of 2024 has been rejected. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment application, it has been stated that as per the provisions contained in Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C, the applicant is entitled to be impleaded as an opposite party in the criminal case. 4. In the order dated 21.04.2025, the trial court has observed that as per the provisions contained in Rule 3A(4) of the Prevention of the Money Laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules 2016, the owner of the property will be given an opportunity of hearing before passing final orders on the claim petition. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC are not applicable to criminal proceedings and the petitioner has no right to get himself impleaded in the opposite party in the criminal case. He has further submitted that Rule 3A(4) referred to in the order dated 21.04.2025 provides right to hearing to the petition at the appropriate stage and the learned trial court has acknowledged this right of the petitioner while rejecting his application of impleadment. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not give any reply to the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the opposite party. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has got no right to be impleaded in the criminal case by relying upon the provisions contained in Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. The impugned order dated 21.04.2024 does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the petition lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench