HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5550 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 27.03.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kannauj in Criminal Revision No. 42 of 2025 (Jyoti Prakash and others vs. Prithivi Raj Singh and another), whereby the operation and effect of the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate have been stayed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional Court has passed the impugned order in a cryptic manner without proper consideration of the material available on record. It is further contended that the order has been passed in violation of Section 397/401(2) Cr.P.C., which mandates that no order prejudicial to the accused or other person shall be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. It is argued that the impugned order has been passed without granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the impugned order is purely interim in nature and has been passed in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is contended that no illegality or perversity is apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court. 5. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Sessions Judge has merely stayed the operation and implementation of the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate in the complaint case. The criminal revision remains pending adjudication before the revisional Court. The impugned order is thus interlocutory and does not finally determine the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dileep Singh Yadav, Parvez Alam Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Prithiviraj Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) rights of the parties. 6. Prima facie, nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that the learned Sessions Judge has committed any jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity in passing the impugned interim order. Interference is only warranted where the error is so manifest that it shocks the conscience of the Court or results in a gross miscarriage of justice. No such ground are established here. 7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned interim order or with the revisional proceedings pending before the learned Sessions Judge. 8. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 9. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Kannauj is directed to decide Criminal Revision No. 42 of 2025 expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. February 18, 2026 I.A.Siddiqui A227 No. 5550 of 2025 2 (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.) Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad