SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 2861

PATNA HIGH COURT
Arun Kumar Jha, J
Babita Devi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna – Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.492 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Abhishek Teerthankar
For the Respondents: S.C.8

Judicial orders of civil courts are not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Headnote:In a criminal writ under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought to quash a lower court's order rejecting a plea for unsealing a commercial godown related to serious IPC offences and Copyright Act violations. The Court found that the judicial orders of lower courts are not subject to writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was permitted to convert the writ into a criminal revision petition as per procedural rules. The Court ruled against the maintainability of the writ in its current form.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

5 08-12-2025 The petitioner has approached this Court to quash the order dated 20.08.2024 passed in Sarai P.S. Case No. 92/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 486 , 487, 420, 272, 273, 411, 413, 414, 467, 468, 120B of the IPC and Sections 51 , 63,64, 65 of the Copyright Act read with Sections 103 /104 of the Trademark Act passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Xth, Vaishali at Hajipur whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for unsealing her commercial godown has been rejected apart from other reliefs.

02. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta Singh & Ors. Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 13578/2024 has held that the judicial orders of the civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In these circumstances, the petitioner can have the course of appropriate proceeding before appropriate forum and not before this Court in a writ under criminal writ jurisdiction.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the Court can proceed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India.

04. I find such submission is fallacious.

05. So far as filing of the 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 could be entertained. So, criminal writ petition under Article 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 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.

06. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to convert the present petition into a criminal revision petition.

07. Permission is accorded.

08. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to convert the present petition into a criminal revision petition within two weeks.

09. Office is directed to extend all cooperation towards conversion.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top