Judicial orders of criminal courts cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution; such challenges must proceed under Article 227.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mohd. Asif Khan, the learned AGA-I for the State.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of orders dated 12.12.2025 and 21.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow in Criminal Case No.3894 of 1999 ( State v. Sahdev Singh and Ors. ).

3. The learned AGA-I has raised a preliminary objection that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. ; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5761, a judicial order passed by criminal courts cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such an order can only be challenged by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Senior Advocate has disputed this objection raised by the learned AGA-I and he has submitted thatNeeta Singh (Supra) has been decided following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and Ors. v. Chhabi Nath and Ors. ; (2015) 5 SCC 423 whereas in para-9 of the judgment in the case ofRadhey Shyam (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-

"Certiorari' may lie and is generally granted when a court has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. The want of jurisdiction may arise from the nature of the subject-matter of the proceeding or from the absence of some preliminary proceeding or the court itself may not be legally constituted or suffer from certain disability by reason of extraneous circumstances, vide Halsbury, 2 Edn., Vol IX, p. 880. When the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the existence of some collateral fact, it is well settled that the court cannot by a wrong decision of the fact give it jurisdiction which it would not otherwise possess, vide Income Tax Special Purposes V Fuller15, R. Bunbury Commissioners"

5. Shri Tripathi has submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam (Supra) as the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction, a writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari would lie.

6. The aforesaid passage relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been taken from a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa ; AIR 1954 SC 440 , which has been quoted in para-10 of the judgment in the case ofRadhey Shyam (Supra). However, this has not been followed or approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofRadhey Shyam (Supra).

7. After referring to the aforesaid judgment in the case of T.C. Basappa (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to numerous other subsequent judgments and concluded that the judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is distinct from the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. In Neeta Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

"3. We have no doubt in our mind about the contours of jurisdiction of a high court when a challenge is presented asserting that the impugned FIR ought to be quashed on the settled parameters. However, sight cannot be lost of the settled legal position that it is entirely within the discretion of a high court whether to interfere or not when other remedies are available. If during the pendency of a wri