ORDER :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. Whether the Magistrate can issue directions under Section 311-A Cr.P.C. to a person pending investigation of a crime to give a specimen of his signature or handwriting, if at no time he has been arrested in connection with the said crime?

2. This is the question that falls to be answered in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, that is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 21.03.2018 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Case Crime no.837 of 2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi, and, for reversal of the said order in effect.

3. Before adverting to the question that is required to be answered in the present case, this Court is constrained to look into the relief claimed in the present petition, that is framed as a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition, but under Article 227 of the Constitution. Without dilating much on this issue, this Court is of considered opinion that a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, is something unknown to the Constitution of India. A Writ Petition is referable to the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and, not to the power under Article 227, that has nothing to do with the Court's Writ Jurisdiction. The aforesaid difference as to the distinct and separate constitutional jurisdictions of this Court, that cannot be intermingled and invoked through a petition for a rolled up relief, has been authoritatively recognized by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetti and others vs. Rajendra Shanker Patil, 2010 (6) AWC 5814 and again in Radhey Shyam vs. Chhabbi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423. The said issue has been dealt with by this Court in M/s. Shiv Baba Industry Lalpur vs. State of U.P., 2018 (9) ADJ 81, sketching the meandering course, the establishment of a separate identity of the two jurisdictions of the High Court has taken and the way it has come to be settled, recognizing the two as distinct and different jurisdictions, each with its own frame and appropriate form of relief. All what has been said about it in M/s. Shiv Baba Industry (supra) does not require repetition, but it must be said here that reliefs in the form claimed in the present petition are ones that can be asked for in a writ petition, and, not in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the present petition is shown in the cause title to be a writ petition, and, not a petition or application under Article 227 of the Constitution. At the same time, the petition has been filed not under Article 226, but under Article 227. That in the considered opinion of this Court is not permissible.

4. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to treat the present petition as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, notwithstanding its labelling in the cause title as a writ petition and the form in which reliefs have been claimed. This course is being adopted, particularly in view of the fact that the petition has been registered as a Matter under Article 227 of the Constitution, and, has proceeded to hearing on merits, that has gone through. However, for the future, the Stamp Reporter and the office shall take care to ensure that a petition under Article 227 is appropriately labelled in the cause title, framed in that manner with appropriate reliefs, which should nowhere mention the word 'Writ', or any form of it.

5. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B. Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA along with Sri Ashutosh Diljan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, respondent no.1 and likewise, a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.2, Triloki Nath. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed.

6. The provision in the statute, that has given rise to the question formulated is Section 311-A Cr.P.