Patna High Court
Rajiv SinghversusThe State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
Criminal writ petitions challenging judicial orders of cognizance are not maintainable under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution.
Summary
Petitioner Rajiv Singh filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash a charge sheet after cognizance had been taken by a Judicial Magistrate. The Court observed that, per Supreme Court precedents (Neeta Singh v. U.P., Pradnya Kulkarni v. Maharashtra, and Shalini Shetty v. Patil), judicial orders are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and cannot be entertained under Article 227. The Patna High Court Rules also did not assign a roster for such criminal miscellaneous petitions. Consequently, the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the petition, and the Court dismissed it as withdrawn, granting liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging a judicial order of cognizance is maintainable.
- Whether the petition can be entertained as a criminal miscellaneous petition under the Patna High Court Rules.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Security and Settlement Act (BNSS) — s. Section 528
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
- Patna High Court Rules — s. Part A Chapter XII Rule 3 Sub Rule (iii), Part A Chapter XII Rule 3 Sub Rule (v)
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- Article 226
- Article 227
- criminal miscellaneous petition
- quashing charge sheet
- cognizance
- withdrawal
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.86 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-224 Year-2025 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka
======================================================
Rajiv Singh, S/O Vijay singh Resident of village- Vishnupur, PS- Nawada
Bazar OP, District- Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna Bihar
2. Principal Secretary, Home Dept, Govt of Bihar, Patna Bihar
3. Director General of Police, Govt of Bihar, Patna Bihar
4. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur Bihar
5. The D.I.G., Banka, Distt-Bhagalpur Bihar
6. The Superintendent of Police, Banka Bihar
7. The SHO, Rajaoun Police Station, Distt-Banka Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Swapnil Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, S.C.3
Ms. Bittu Kumari, AC to SC-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-06-2026 The petitioner has approached this Court under
Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeking
quashing of charge sheet no. 122/2025 dated 30.06.2025 filed in
connection with Rajoun (Nawada OP) P.S. Case No. 224/2025
so far as it relates to the petitioner. However, upon query being
made by this Court about the present stage of the case, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cognizance has
already been taken in the matter by the learned concerned
Judicial Magistrate.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.86 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
2/3
02. Apparently, the petitioner has approached this
Court seeking quashing of charge sheet upon which judicial
order in the form of cognizance has been passed, hence, the
petitioner is assailing a judicial order in writ jurisdiction under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
03. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in
2024 SCC OnLine 5761 and Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Vs.
State Of Maharashtra & Anr, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1948, has held that judicial orders are not amenable to writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
though the same may be challenged under Article 227 of the
Constitution or Section 528 of BNSS. So far as filing of the
present 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 could be entertained. So, criminal
writ petition under Articles 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
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.86 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
3/3
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.
04. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with
liberty to have recourse of law in appropriate proceeding before
the appropriate forum.
05. Prayer is allowed.
06. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed
as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.