Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63224 Court No. - 76 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3969 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Pooja Rani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bharat Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State- respondents. 2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a stay on the effect and operation of the order dated 01.03.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Moradabad in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2024, titled Smt. Pooja Rani v. State, as well as the order dated 14.02.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court, Moradabad in Case No. 19 of 2021, instituted under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. – Mahila, District Moradabad. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court committed an error in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 14.02.2024. The crux of the petitioner's grievance is the alleged act of interpolation of date by the counsel for opposite party no. 2, in the order sheet whereby the date of hearing fixed by the court was purportedly altered from 5.1.2023 to 15.01.2023, thereby impeding the judicial process. The petitioner's appeal against the said rejection was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-3, Moradabad, affirming the order dated 14.2.2024, erroneously. 4. Upon careful perusal of the record and the order impugned herein, this Court finds that the issue concerning the alleged interpolation has been duly addressed by the appellate Court in paragraphs 29 to 32 of its detailed order dated 01.03.2025. No manifest error of law or fact, nor any procedural irregularity, has been pointed out that would justify interference by this Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 5. It is well-settled that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is supervisory and is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where there is a patent error affecting jurisdiction or where the order impugned is perverse, arbitrary, or suffers from gross miscarriage of justice. 6. In the present case, the concurrent findings of both the trial and appellate courts do not disclose any such error warranting interference under Article 227. The orders appear well-reasoned and passed after due consideration of the submissions and material on record. 7. In light of the foregoing, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 A. Tripathi Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad