Patna High Court
Furqan AlamversusThe State of Bihar through the Director General of Police (DGP), Bihar, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed.
Summary
Furqan Alam filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a certiorari to quash criminal proceedings (complaint case 411/2022) pending before the Aurangabad Judicial Magistrate, alleging the complaint by Saima Arfa was false and malicious. The respondent argued that the criminal case was at the stage of argument and that writ jurisdiction does not extend to judicial orders of a trial court. The High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents (Neeta Singh v. State of U.P., Prakash Chand) stating that challenges to such orders must be made by appeal, revision, or under Article 227, not by writ. The Court noted that mediation had been attempted twice and failed, and that sending the matter again to mediation would serve no purpose. Consequently, the Court held the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be filed to quash criminal proceedings pending before a trial court.
- Whether the petitioner can obtain a stay of the criminal trial through a writ when mediation attempts have failed.
- Whether judicial orders of a criminal trial court are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 379, 498, 5
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1866 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-411 Year-2022 Thana- AURANGABAD COMPLAINT CASE
District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Furqan Alam S/o Zahiruddin Ansari Resident of Ward No. 3, Baradari
Mohalla, Purani Sahar Daudnagar, P.S.- Daud Nagar, District- Aurangabad.
Presently posted in the office of Comman dant 104, Brn. BSF Khasiamangal,
Taliamura (Tripurra)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police (DGP), Bihar,
Patna Bihar
2. Smt. Saima Arfa @ Saima Aasfa W/o Furqan Ahmad, D/o- Md. Isheteyaq
Ahmad Resident of Ward No. 3, Baradari Mohalla- Purani, Shahar
Daudnagar, P.S.- Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad. At present R/o Village-
Balapokhar, P.S.- Deo, District- Auranagabad
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rampravesh Nath Tiwari, Adv.
For the State : G.P. 11
For the Respondent no.2 : Mr. Santosh Kr. Pandey, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 29-01-2026 The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of appropriate writ/
writs in the nature of writ of certiorari
for quashing of entire criminal
proceedings pending against the
petitioner in connection with complaint
case No. 411/2022, Tr. No. 352/22
(Saima Arfa Vs. Furqan Alam), pending
before the court of Sri Shad Razaque
Learned J.M. Ist Class, Aurangabad,
Registered U/S-379, 323, 498A for the
reason that the prosecution against the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1866 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
2/5
petitioner is totally false and malacious
and the same has initiated by respondent
No.2 to pressurize the petitioner to
ensure compliance of her unreasonable
demands.
(ii) For issuance of direction/ direction of
Court concern i.e. the Court of J.M. 1st
Class, Aurangabad to stay the
proceedings of complaint case No.
411/2022, Tr. No. 352/2022 against the
petitioner during pendency of the instant
writ application.
(iii) For issuance of any other relief /
reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled
to on the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
02. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no. 2 submits that pursuant to Complaint Case No.
411 of 2022, Tr. No. 352/22 pending before the learned JMFC,
Aurangabad registered for the offences under Sections 379, 323,
498A of the IPC, evidence of the parties have been recorded and
the matter is fixed for arguments. Therefore, the present writ
petition is not maintainable.
03. I find weight in the submission of the learned
counsel for the respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Neeta Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 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 and that
jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction under
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1866 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
3/5
Article 226. It further held that challenge to judicial orders
could lie by way of an appeal or a revision or under Article 227
of the Constitution and not by way of a writ under Articles 226
and 32. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 15 has
held as under:-
“15. In view of the decision in Prakash
Chand (supra), we hold that nomenclature
of a petition read with the substance thereof
does matter. Much depends on what the
subject matter of the petition is and who is
entrusted to hear and decide it. A Judge of
a high court having been assigned petitions
under Article 226 for hearing and decision
by its Chief Justice cannot, if he (the
Judge) finds that the petition filed under
Article 226 should have ideally been filed
under Article 227, treat the petition as one
under Article 227 and proceed to hear and
decide it, unless the Chief Justice has also
assigned to such Judge petitions under
Article 227 of the Constitution for hearing
and decision. If not so assigned, the
learned Judge may, in his discretion, direct
the petition to be treated as one under
Article 227 for being placed before the
learned Judge having assignment. This is
mandatory and, therefore, one finds the
caution sounded by this Court in the
opening sentence of paragraph 26 of Pepsi
Foods (supra) to be of extreme
significance.”
In the light of decision of the Supreme Court, it is
clear that a writ petition is not maintainable against judicial
orders. Moreover if cognizance have been taken, the writ
petition does not remain entertainable.
04. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1866 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
4/5
submits that the matter has a chance of settlement and the matter
may be referred to the mediation centre for bringing out a
settlement between the parties.
05. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner has
earlier approached this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 59658 of 2022
wherein submission was made that the parties have settled the
dispute between them through the process of mediation and
have been staying together and thereafter pre-arrest bail was
granted to the petitioner. However the petitioner did not abide
by the settlement as is claimed by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent no. 2. Further in Cr. Rev. No. 523 of
2024 vide order dated 23.04.2025 the matter was again referred
for mediation and admittedly the said mediation has again
failed.
06. I consider the submission made on behalf of the
petitioner to be only a tactics for buying time. When mediation
has twice failed between the parties, which has been initiated at
the instance of the learned Co-ordinate Benches and the matter
has reached the stage of disposal before the learned trial court,
no useful purpose will be served in again sending the case for
mediation. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceeding
before the learned trial court, the course open to the petitioner is
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1866 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
5/5
to approach the appropriate forum in appropriate proceeding but
in no case in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
07. Therefore, I do not find the present writ petition fit
to be maintainable and hence the same is dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
U T
Checking your session…