Patna High Court
Devnandan SinghversusThe State of Bihar throughh the Principal Secretary, Home Bihar, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- CONVERTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
Judicial orders of criminal courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Summary
Devnandan Singh filed a criminal writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash an order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that had rejected his Section 323 Cr.P.C. petition. The High Court held that judicial orders of criminal courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227, relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Neeta Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil. Consequently, the petition could not be entertained as a writ petition. The Court, however, permitted the petitioner to convert the writ petition into an appropriate petition within two weeks. The order directed the office to cooperate with the conversion process.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal writ petition under Article 226 or 227 can be filed to quash an order of a judicial magistrate.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under writ jurisdiction against the order rejecting his Section 323 Cr.P.C. petition.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 323
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- Article 226
- Article 227
- criminal court orders
- quash order
- Section 323 CrPC
- High Court Rules
- conversion of petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.119 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-150 Year-2021 Thana- ARIYARI District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Devnandan Singh S/o- Late Ramji Singh Village- Kemra Post- Diha PS-
Ariyari Distt- Sheikhpura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Bihar, Patna Bihar
2. Bablu Kumar S/o- Rudradeo Singh R/v- Kemra Po- Diha Ps- Ariyari Dist-
Sheikhpura
3. Dablu Kumar S/o- Rudradeo Singh R/v- Kemra Po- Diha Ps- Ariyari Dist-
Sheikhpura
4. Sanjeet Kumar S/o- Rudradeo Singh R/v- Kemra Po- Diha Ps- Ariyari Dist-
Sheikhpura
5. D.M Kumar S/o- Rudradeo Singh R/v- Kemra Po- Diha Ps- Ariyari Dist-
Sheikhpura
6. Dilkhush Kumar S/o- Shankar Singh R/v- Kemra Po- Diha Ps- Ariyari Dist-
Sheikhpura
7. Shankar Singh S/o- Late Bhupal Singh R/v- Kemra Po- Diha Ps- Ariyari
Dist- Sheikhpura
8. Bhushan Singh S/o- Late Bhupal Singh R/v- Kemra Po- Diha Ps- Ariyari
Dist- Sheikhpura
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Lalit, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.S.C. 13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 The petitioner has approached this Court for
quashing the order dated 22.12.2025 passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Sheikhpura in G.R. Case
No. 1327 of 2021, arising out of Ariyari P.S. Case No. 150/2021
whereby and whereunder the petition dated 12.12.2025 filed
under Section 323 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner has been rejected,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.119 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/3
apart from other reliefs.
02. Apparently, the petitioner has approached this
Court against a judicial order passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Sheikhpura.
03. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta
Singh & Ors. Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. in
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 13578/2024 has held that
the judicial orders of the civil court are not amenable to writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In these
circumstances, the petitioner can have the course of appropriate
proceeding before appropriate forum and not before this Court
in a writ under criminal writ jurisdiction.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present writ has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India and the Court can proceed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
05. I find such submission to be fallacious.
06. So far as filing of the writ petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India is concerned, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty
Vs.Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010)8 SCC 329 has also made it
clear that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India no writ
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.119 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/3
could be entertained. So, criminal writ petition under Article
226 and 227 of the Constitution against a judicial order would
not lie. Further, Part A Chapter XII Rule 3 Sub Rule (iii) and (v)
of Patna High Court Rules provides for filing a petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India as criminal
miscellaneous petition and the said roster of criminal
miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has not been assigned to this Bench.
07. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks permission to convert the present petition into appropriate
petition.
08. Permission is accorded.
09. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to
convert the present petition into appropriate petition within two
weeks.
10. Office is directed to extend all cooperation
towards conversion.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
U T
Checking your session…