Patna High Court
Sashi Bhushan NarayanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed because judicial orders of criminal courts cannot be challenged under Article 226 without a specific roster under Article 227 or Section 528 BNSS.
Summary
Petitioners Sashi Bhushan Narayan and Tetri Devi filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to set aside an order of taking cognizance dated 09.10.2023 by the Exclusive Special Judge (SC/ST) in Gaya for offences under various IPC sections and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petition argued that the High Court could entertain the writ despite the nature of the order and relied on decisions of Ramawatar and Gulam Mustafa. The Court examined Supreme Court precedents, notably Radhey Shyam, Neeta Singh & Ors., and Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni, which hold that judicial orders of criminal courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 unless a specific roster under Article 227 or Section 528 BNSS is assigned. The Court found the reliance on Ramawatar and Gulam Mustafa inapplicable as those cases dealt with inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, not Article 226. Consequently, the petition was held to be filed on a misconceived basis and was dismissed as not maintainable.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained to challenge a judicial order of taking cognizance by a criminal court.
- Whether the nomenclature of the petition (Article 226 vs. Article 227 or Section 528 BNSS) affects its maintainability.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482, 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 354(B), 376, 406, 420, 511
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- Article 226
- writ jurisdiction
- criminal court orders
- taking cognizance
- SC/ST Act
- nomenclature
- maintainability
- High Court jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.202 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-444 Year-2022 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Sashi Bhushan Narayan Son of Late Chedi Narayan Resident of Village-
Padumchak Barachatti, Post and P.S.- Barachatti, District- Gaya, At present
resident of Village- Badhi Tola, P.S.- Sherghati, District- Gaya
2. Tetri Devi Wife of Sashi Bhushan Narayan Resident of Village - Padumchak
Barachatti, Post- Barachatti, District- Gaya, at present resident of Village-
Badhi Tola, P.S.- Sherghati, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Senior Superintendent of Police Gaya.
3. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sherghati Gaya
4. The Station House Officer, Sherghati Police Station Gaya.
5. The Investigating Officer of Sherghati P.S. Case No. 444/2022 dated
03.06.2022 Sherghati Police Station, Gaya.
6. Premni Kumari Wife of Surendra Das Resident of Mohalla- Lagan Taakiya,
P.S.- Sherghati, District- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Dr. Md. Raisul Haque, S.C.10
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for setting
aside the order taking cognizance dated 09.10.2023 passed by
the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Gaya in connection with Sherghati P.S. Case
No. 444 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court
has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 341, 323, 420,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.202 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
2/5
406, 376, 354(B) and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and directed for issuance of
summons against the petitioners.
3. Since the petitioners have approached this Court
against a judicial order taking cognizance, obviously the writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not
maintainable.
4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that this Court can entertain the writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution for quashing of the judicial orders and
nomenclature does not matter whether it is filed under Article
226 or Article 227 or Section 528 BNSS. In support of his
contention, he placed reliance on the decision in the case(s) of
Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 13 SCC 635
and Gulam Mustafa Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., (2023) 18
SCC 265.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam v.
Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423 has held that judicial orders of
the civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution. Thereafter relying upon the decision of
Radhey Shyam (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.202 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
3/5
of Neeta Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 5761 in paragraph-5 held as under:
“5. Although Radhey Shyam (supra) dealt
with judicial orders passed by civil courts,
there cannot be a different standard for judicial
orders passed by criminal courts. If a judicial
order passed by a civil court cannot be
challenged in a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution, a fortiori, a judicial order
passed by a criminal court cannot also be
challenged in a writ petition under Article
226.”
6. In the case of Neeta Singh & Ors. (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that nomenclature does
matter and held in Paragraph-15 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
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.202 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
4/5
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.”
7. Further, in the case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1948, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court was
not correct in dismissing the petition as while passing the
impugned order, the bench was having both the rosters of Article
226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 CrPC/Section
528 BNSS.
8. Cumulative reading of these two decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. Neeta Singh & Ors. (supra) and
Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni (supra) makes it clear that unless a
certain roster under Article 227 or Section 528 BNSS is assigned
to the same Court which is hearing the writ petition under
Article 226, the writ Court cannot entertain any writ against any
judicial order. So far as reliance placed by the learned counsel
for the petitioner upon the decisions of Ramawatar (supra) and
Gulam Mustafa (supra) is concerned, both the matters deal with
inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC
and thus those decisions are in no way concerned with the
powers of Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.202 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
5/5
entertaining a writ against judicial orders. It goes without saying
that judicial orders do not infringe upon rights of a person which
would make such order amenable to the writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
9. In the light of discussion made hereinbefore, I am
of the opinion that the present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioners under misconceived notion and could not be
entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed as not
maintainable.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.