Patna High Court – Orders
Nitish Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 13 February, 2026
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.711 of 2022
======================================================
Nitish Singh & Anr.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Fazle Karim, AC to SC-1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
16 13-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking
following reliefs:
“(i) Issuance of an appropriate writ in the
nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or
direction as may be deemed appropriate by this
Hon’ble Court to set aside the C.C. No. 110 of
2022 (Sanjay Kumar vs. Dr. Rakesh Singh and
another) (Annexure-4) filed by respondent no. 6 on
instance of respondent no. 5, who with sole
intention has prepared the respondent no. 6 to
snatch and occupy the undivided joint property of
the petitioners which is an ancestral house and
dalan in Village/Mauza – Bakhtari, Post – Jalpura,
Police Station – Karpi, District – Arwal situated at
Plot No. 522, Khata No. 47 by involving them in
false and fabricated case.
(ii) Issuance of an appropriate direction
commanding the concern respondent authority by
staying the impugned complaint case bearing C.C.
No. 110 of 2022 (Sanjay Kumar vs. Dr. Rakesh
Singh and another) with direction not to take
coercive action against the petitioners during
pendency of this writ application.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.711 of 2022(16) dt.13-02-2026
2/4
(iii) Any other relief(s) as petitioners may be
found entitled to under the facts and circumstances
of the case.”
3. Perusal of the record shows cognizance has been
taken in this case pursuant to the Complaint Case No. 110 of
2022, dated 02.06.2022 against the petitioners under Sections
341, 323, 452 and 504/34 of the IPC. Against judicial order, a
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not
maintainable and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Neeta Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., in
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 13578 of 2024, reported
in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5761, has held in paragraph nos. 5 and
15, which read as under:
“5. Although Radhey Shyam (supra) dealt
with judicial orders passed by civil courts, there
cannot be a different standard for judicial orders
passed by criminal courts. If a judicial order
passed by a civil court cannot be challenged in a
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,
a fortiori, a judicial order passed by a criminal
court cannot also be challenged in a writ petition
under Article 226.
15. In view of the decision in Prakash
Chand (supra), we hold that nomenclature of a
petition read with the substance thereof does
matter. Much depends on what the subject matter
of the petition is and who is entrusted to her and
decide it. A Judge of a high court having been
assigned petitions under Article 226 for hearing
and decision by its Chief Justice cannot, if he (the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.711 of 2022(16) dt.13-02-2026
3/4Judge) finds that the petition filed under Article
226 should have ideally been filed under Article
227, treat the petition as one under Article 227 and
proceed to hear and decide it, unless the Chief
Justice has also assigned to such Judge petitions
under Article 227 of the Constitution for hearing
and decision. If not so assigned, the learned Judge
may, in his discretion, direct the petition to be
treated as one under Article 227 for being placed
before the learned Judge having assignment. This
is mandatory and, therefore, one finds the caution
sounded by this Court in the opening sentence of
paragraph 26 of Pepsi Foods (supra) to be of
extreme significance.”
4. Thus, the writ petition could not be entertained
since cognizance has already taken place. However, from
perusal of record, I find that the petitioners filed an interlocutory
application, bearing I.A. No. 01 of 2022, seeking amendment in
paragraph no. 1 as well as prayer portion of the writ petition for
setting aside the order dated 02.06.2022, passed in Complaint
Case No. 110 of 2022, whereby and whereunder cognizance has
been taken against the petitioners, apart from other reliefs. The
said interlocutory application had been allowed vide order dated
14.07.2022 by a learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
5. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.04.2025, another
learned co-ordinate Bench ordered that the application would be
heard. It seems the orders of learned co-ordinate Benches run
counter to the proposition of law as enunciated by the Hon’ble
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.711 of 2022(16) dt.13-02-2026
4/4
Supreme Court in the case of Neeta Singh (supra).
6. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the
petitioners seeks a short adjournment to satisfy this Court
regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition.
7. List this case on 19.02.2026.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Shahnawaz/-
U T