Judicial orders from civil courts cannot be challenged through writs under Article 226; alternative remedies must be exhausted first.

1. This writ petition came up for consideration on 6th April 2016. During course of argument, its maintainability was a starting - point preliminary objection fervently taken by learned counsel for respondents. Having taken preliminary objection as regards maintainability of writ petition and on consensus of learned counsel for parties, the writ petition was heard and reserved for orders.

2. Instant Writ Petition has been filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and S.103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir . Petitioners seek issuance of writ of certiorari to quash order dated 28th May 2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, (for brevity 'Trial Magistrate'), besides other reliefs. It would be advantageous to reproduce the relief sought by petitioners in writ petition;

a) Issue a writ of certiorari [or] any other appropriate writ to the Hon'ble CBI Court Srinagar, to quash the aforesaid decision / order dated 28 May 2014

b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Court of Inquiry to transfer the proceedings to the CBI Court for taking cognizance;

c) Direct the CBI Court to resume jurisdiction subject to the procedure established by law;

d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to the CBI to comply with directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court by making an application to the Central Government for grant of sanction within four weeks;
e) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to the Central Government and the Army to get them to cooperate with the criminal Justice system and assist the Hon'ble Sessions Court in bringing the accused to trial before the Sessions Court

3. Shorn off discussions concerning factual background of the case as the writ petition has been taken up for final disposal on preliminary issue whether it is maintainable or not in the present form.

4. Under challenge in writ petition on hand is order dated 28th May 2014, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, on application filed by petitioner no.1 here. Learned counsel for respondents' first objection as regards maintainability of writ petition on hand, and rightly said, is that alternative remedy is available to petitioners under S.435 Cr.P.C, under which they could have thrown challenge to impugned order instead of knocking at portals of this Court with instant writ petition. Learned counsel for respondents also stoutly urge that it would have been advisable and convenient for the petitioners, besides in the interests of proceedings, to approach the concerned Sessions Court against order impugned dated 28th May 2014. In this regard they refer to decision rendered in Cr.Revision No. 115/2005 titled Nisar Ahmad Nengroo v. Khalida and others reported in JKJ 2010 (4) 405. It would be advantageous to reproduce relevant portion of the said judgement hereunder:

'Before concluding, however, it would be appropriate to observe that the present revision petition which arises out of an order of Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag could and perhaps should well have been instituted in the Sessions Court at Anantnag where respondents would find it easy to prosecute their case rather than in this Court which must have put them to greater inconvenience and expenditure........Given that it would perhaps be advisable that as a matter of practice institution of revision petitions against Magisterial orders be restricted to courts of Sessions, which besides being convenient for he parties would also be in the interests of proceedings because being nearer to ground realities the court of Sessions con ascertain fads and circumstances of a particular case mor