Madhya Pradesh High Court: Writ Appeal Not Maintainable When Petition Essentially Invokes Criminal Jurisdiction

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a writ appeal cannot be entertained against an order of a Single judge where the relief sought in the original petition essentially relates to criminal jurisdiction, even if the petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Dismissing a writ appeal filed by Umesh Godaniya, a Division bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma clarified that the nature of relief sought and the character of the proceedings determine whether an intra-court appeal is maintainable.

The case arose after the appellant challenged an earlier order of a Single judge dated February 24, 2026, by which his writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The petitioner had sought directions for a fair and time-bound enquiry regarding his alleged presence at the time of an incident connected with Crime No. 14/2026 registered at Police Station Karahiya in Gwalior district. He also prayed that records including CCTV footage from the police station be called for and that his name be excluded from the FIR.

Appearing for the appellant, advocate Arun Katare argued that since the petition had been filed under Article 226, an intra-court appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 would be maintainable. Additional Advocate General Ankur Mody, representing the State, opposed the appeal and contended that the relief sought was essentially a prayer to interfere with criminal investigation, falling within the scope of powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.

After hearing both sides, the High court agreed with the State and held that maintainability cannot be determined merely by the label of the petition. The court emphasised that the true test lies in examining the substance of the relief sought and the jurisdiction exercised by the Single judge. The bench observed that though the petition was framed under Article 226, the relief claimed was “akin to the relief which is claimed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.” and therefore the proceedings were essentially criminal in nature.

The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana, which explained the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings. The High court noted that the character of a proceeding depends not on the forum exercising jurisdiction but on the nature of the right violated and the relief claimed. A criminal proceeding, the Supreme Court observed, is ordinarily one which may ultimately result in punishment such as imprisonment, fine or forfeiture of property.

Applying this principle, the Division bench held that once a litigant invokes the extraordinary or inherent criminal jurisdiction of the High court before a Single judge, an intra-court appeal before a Division bench would not lie. The judges further explained that Section 2 of the 2005 Adhiniyam permits an appeal only against orders passed in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226, and cannot be used where the substance of proceedings relates to criminal jurisdiction.

The bench also referred to earlier precedents of the High court which held that when a litigant effectively invokes the criminal jurisdiction of the court, the remedy of an intra-court appeal is barred. The judges noted that permitting such appeals merely because the petition is styled under Article 226 would create an anomalous situation and defeat the settled distinction between civil and criminal proceedings.

In its order, the court clearly concluded that once a litigant has effectively invoked the High Court’s criminal jurisdiction, “no appeal would lie before the Division Bench,” even if the petition was styled under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Finally, accordingly, the Division bench dismissed the writ appeal on the ground of maintainability, while reiterating that the petitioner remains free to avail the alternative remedy granted earlier by the Single judge before the competent Magistrate.

Case Title: Umesh Godaniya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: March 10, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma