Article 226 Cannot Be Used to Bypass Bar on Criminal Appeals: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a writ appeal is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge while exercising criminal jurisdiction, even if the petition was styled as one under Article 226 of the Constitution.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat dismissed a writ appeal challenging the dismissal of his writ petition seeking expungement of an investigation report and a direction to halt further investigation.

The appeal arose from an order dated 7 January 2026 passed by a Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 49073 of 2025, wherein the Court had declined to interfere with the investigation and instead directed the police authorities to conduct a free and fair investigation and conclude it expeditiously in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the absence of a fixed timeline for completion of the investigation, the appellant approached the Division Bench seeking limited relief to prescribe a time-bound framework.

Appearing for the appellant, Senior Advocate Shri MPS Raghuvashi, assisted by Shri Mohd. Amir Khan, sought for prescription of a time limit for completion of the investigation, contending that the relief sought in the writ petition had not been adequately addressed.

Opposing the appeal, Additional Advocate General Shri Ankur Mody raised a preliminary objection on maintainability. He submitted that although the writ petition was filed under Article 226, the reliefs sought were in substance akin to those available under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the order passed by the Single Judge was in exercise of criminal jurisdiction, rendering the writ appeal barred under the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

The Division Bench accepted the objection and underscored that the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the Single Judge must be determined by the character of the relief sought and not merely by the nomenclature of the petition. Relying extensively on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana (2017) 5 SCC 533, the Court reiterated that proceedings seeking to quash or interfere with criminal investigation fall squarely within criminal jurisdiction, irrespective of whether they are initiated under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC.

The Bench observed that permitting intra-court appeals in such cases would lead to an anomalous situation where identical reliefs would yield different appellate remedies based solely on the form of the petition. Such an interpretation, the Court held, would defeat the legislative intent behind the Adhiniyam, 2005. The judges further noted that earlier decisions, including Shailendra Kumar v. Divisional Forest Officer and Pradeep Kori v. State of M.P., had consistently held that no writ appeal lies against orders passed by a Single Judge in criminal proceedings.

Clarifying the legal position, the Court held that once a litigant invokes the extraordinary or inherent criminal jurisdiction of the High Court, no intra-court appeal would be maintainable before a Division Bench. Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of maintainability, while reiterating that the authorities must comply with the directions issued by the Single Judge regarding completion of investigation in accordance with law.

Case Title: Sanjay Singh Jadon v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Order Date: January 19, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat