Article 226 jurisdiction does not extend to Judicial Orders of Criminal Courts: HC Dismisses Petition as not Maintainable, directs recourse under Article 227

The Allahabad High Court has shut down a creative but constitutionally flawed attempt to use a writ petition under Article 226 to dismantle orders passed by a criminal court, ruling the petition flatly unmaintainable at the admission stage itself. The petitioner who sought quashing of two orders dated December 12, 2025 and February 21, 2026 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, has been sent back to square one, with a clear direction to knock on the right door, Article 227.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash orders passed by the SCJM (Custom), Lucknow in a criminal case dating back to 1999. The State's counsel immediately raised a preliminary objection, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Neeta Singh v. State of U.P. to argue that judicial orders of criminal courts are simply beyond the reach of Article 226.

The petitioner's Senior Advocate Amrendra Nath Tripathi, pushed back hard, invoking Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath to argue that certiorari could still lie where an order was passed without jurisdiction, a contention the court examined closely before rejecting entirely.

The Court traced the legal lineage with precision: the passage from T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa  that the petitioner leaned on was merely quoted, never endorsed, in Radhey Shyam, which ultimately held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to Article 226 writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Neeta Singh then extended this principle without ambiguity to criminal courts as well, declaring that, "a judicial order passed by a criminal court cannot also be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226" , closing whatever narrow window the petitioner believed remained open.

Holding the legal position to be beyond doubt, the court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable at the admission stage, while preserving the petitioner's liberty to file a fresh petition under Article 227.

Case Title: Smt. Archana Mishra Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Anr

Case No.: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 2574 of 2026

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra

Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com