Allahabad High Court
Smt. Awatari Devi & Others vs State Of U.P. & Another on 7 August, 2015
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 784 of 2006
Petitioner :- Smt. Awatari Devi & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Tiwari,S.P. Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and perused the record.
2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.1.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 361 of 2005 (Smt. Avatari Devi and others vs. State of U.P. and another), whereby dismissing the revision preferred against the order dated 7.3.2005 passed by The Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Basti in Criminal Case No. 68 of 2005 (Smt. RAjpati Devi vs. Avatari Devi and others) summoning the petitioners to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C.
3. Learned A.G.A., appearing for State, at the outset, submitted that in respect of judicial orders passed by criminal courts, writ petition under Article 226 would not lie and placed reliance on a recent three Judges decision of Apex Court in Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi Nath and others 2015 (3) SCALE 88, wherein the following reference was made to Large Bench, "whether judicial orders of Civil Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and whether jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution".
4. The Larger Bench answered first question in affirmative holding that against judicial orders of Civil Courts writ petition under Article 226 would not lie. It also held that jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from Article 226. The basic reason assigned by Court is that against orders of Tribunal, writ petition under Article 226 may be filed but in respect of orders of Civil Courts, since a specific provision is provided under Article 227, the same cannot be challenged under Article 226. Drawing parity therefrom the learned A.G.A. submitted that judicial orders passed by Criminal Courts also comes within the same category as judicial orders passed by Civil Courts, therefore, writ petition under Article 226 would not lie.
5. When confronted with aforesaid position, learned counsel for petitioners could not give any reply and fairly stated that apparently the law laid down by Apex Court in Radhy Shyam (supra) and the reasoning given therein would also be attracted in the case of judicial orders passed by Criminal Courts.
6. In view thereof, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in respect of judicial orders passed by Criminal Court, would not lie. It can be challenged in a petition filed under Article 227, provided the grounds and limitations thereunder are satisfied. This writ petition challenging judicial orders passed by Criminal Court has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore, apparently it is not maintainable.
7. Even otherwise, having heard heard learned counsel for petitioners and going through the impugned order as also pleadings and grounds taken in writ petition, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the order impugned in this writ petition warranting interference.
8. Dismissed.
9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 7.8.2015
Ashish Pd.
