RAVI KUMAR S/O DHARAM SINGH vs STATE OF RAJ.

Court
Rajasthan High Court

[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB]
REPORTABLE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
Judgment reserved on: 29.10.2026
Judgment delivered on: 02.11.2026
Judgment (Full) uploaded on: 02 .1 1 .2026
D.B. Civil Reference No. 2/2026
In
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.16049/2026
CNR: RJHC020994472026 | URN: CREF / 5U / 2026
Ravi Kumar S/o Dharam Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Purbaikhera Ps Rudawal Tehsil Bayana Dist. Bharatpur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Raj., Through PP.
2. Dheeraj S/o Rambabu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Purbaikhera Ps Rudawal Tehsil Bayana Dist. Bharatpur
Raj.
3. Bhupendra S/o Rambabu, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Purbaikhera Ps Rudawal Tehsil Bayana Dist. Bharatpur
Raj.
4. Sondev S/o Rambabu, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Purbaikhera Ps Rudawal Tehsil Bayana Dist. Bharatpur
Raj.
5. Anil S/o Kishan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Purbaikhera Ps
Rudawal Tehsil Bayana Dist. Bharatpur Raj.
6. Rambabu S/o Sukaram, Aged About 73 Years, R/o
Purbaikhera Ps Rudawal Tehsil Bayana Dist. Bharatpur
Raj.
7. Vikaram S/o Kishan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Purbaikhera Ps Rudawal Tehsil Bayana Dist. Bharatpur
Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain
Ms. Kriti Kalawatia
Mr. Vaibhav Pareek
Mr. Rajeev Bhushan Bansal
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(2 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
Ms. Ritu Bansal
Mr. Rahul Kumar
Mr. Vaibhav Nirmal
Mr. Shubham Rohila
Mr. Vedant Agarwal
Mr. Swapnil Upman
Mr. Naman Maheshwari
Mr. Vishwas Fatehpuria
Mr. Parmeshwar Lal Pilania
Mr. Avi Airun
Mr. Rajesh Kala
Mr. Jitendra Mitruka
Mr. Aniroodh Mathur
Mr. Krishnveer Singh
Mr. Naman Yadav
Mr. Punit Singhvi
Mr. Kapil Gupta
Mr. Chitransh Sharma
Mr. Tanay Choudhary

Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Adv. through VC
Mr. Vikas Baliya, Sr. Adv. With
Ms. Sheetal Kumbhat through VC
Mr. Dilip Singh Udawat through VC
Mr. Arun Kumar Jhajhariya through
VC
Mr. Harshit Bhurani through VC
Mr. Raunak Singhvi through VC
Mr. Anshuman Singh Champawat
through VC
Ms. Kamini Joshi through VC
Mr. Aniruddh Kothari through VC
Mr. Maheshwar Singh Bhati through
VC
Mr. Yash Tripathi through VC
Mr. Shivam Harsh through VC
Mr. Moti Singh through VC
Mr. Sumit Singhal through VC
Dr. RDSS Kharlia through VC
Mr. Chandan Singh Jodha through VC
Mr. Pradeep Rajpurohit through VC
Mr. Kailash Sharma through VC
Mr. Siddharth Tanwar through VC
Mr. Dungar Dan Charan through VC
Mr. Bharat Gurjar through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AG with
Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma &
Ms. Dhriti Laddha
Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA cum AAG
with Ms. Neha Goel &
Mr. Aman Agarwal
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(3 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
Full Bench
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Sanjay K. Agrawal, CJ
For the sake of convenience, the judgment is divided in
following parts:
S.No. Particulars Page Nos.
1. Preface 3
2. The question of law referred to Full Bench 4
3. Factual background 4
4. Rule 315 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules 6
5. Difference between civil and criminal proceedings 8
6. Answer to question No.(i) 13
7. Answer to question No.(ii) 14
8. Answer to question No.(iii) 17
9. Answer to question No.(iv) 19
10. Answer to question No.(v) 21
11. Our answer to the Reference 23
12. Directions 25
Preface
1. Anand Sharma, J, while hearing Civil Writ Petition finding
conflict with direction issued by Division Bench on 07.07.2026 in
the matter of Jiya & Others v. The Government of Rajasthan
1
& Others : with Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rules of the High Court of
1 D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.128/2018
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(4 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952, referred the following questions of
law for consideration:
The question s of law referred to Full Bench
“i) Whether, having regard to Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rules of
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952, a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution arsing out of, or
concerning, a criminal matter/proceeding can be separately
registered as an S.B. Criminal Writ Petition, or is required to
be treated as an S.B. Civil Writ Petition for the purposes of
its registration, classification and placement before the
appropriate roster?
ii) Whether the nomenclature “Criminal Writ Petition” is
merely a matter of Registry classification or whether such
classification reflects the substantive character of a
proceeding arising from criminal jurisdiction?
iii) Whether Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rules of the High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952, which expressly
contemplates registration of an application for issuance of a
writ under Article 226 “in a criminal matter”, can be
rendered inoperative or ignored by a judicial direction
without holding the Rule to be ultra vires or
unconstitutional?
iv) Whether order dated 07.07.2026 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Jiya & Ors. v. The
Government of Rajasthan & Ors., (D.B. Criminal Writ
Petition No. 128/2018) , to the extent that it directs that
no petition be registered as a “Criminal Writ Petition” and
that a writ petition relating to a criminal matter can only be
registered as a “Civil Writ Petition”, is reconcilable with Rule
315(1)(h) of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, 1952?
v) Whether, in the event of an irreconcilable conflict being
found, order dated 07.07.2026 passed by Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Jiya & Others v. The
Government of Rajasthan & Others, (D.B.Criminal
Writ Petition No.128/2018) requires reconsideration by
a Larger Bench so as to avoid any inconsistency with Rule
315(1)(h) of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, 1952?”
Factual background
2. The central controversy is whether a writ petition arising
from a criminal matter must be registered and classified as a
criminal matter under Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rules of the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(5 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
“the Rajasthan High Court Rules”) notwithstanding the Division
Bench directions in Jiya (supra) , order dated 07.07.2026, that
the Registry should not register any case under the nomenclature
“Criminal Writ Petition”. The order dated 07.07.2026 states as
under:
“1. The petitioner has filed this petition in the nature of
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition.
2. Registry has also entertained it as a Criminal Writ
Petition, whereas there is no such concept of Criminal Writ
Petition provided in the Constitution.
3. A writ petition can be filed for raising the issues which
may also relate to a criminal matter but the same would
not be treated as a ‘Criminal Writ Petition’ and the same
can only be registered as a writ petition alone.
4. It is for the Court to examine the case or for the
purpose of placing them before the concerned roster.
Henceforth, the Registry is directed not to register any
case as ‘Criminal Writ Petition’.
5. This case was adjourned sine die without any plausible
reasons earlier.
6. Office is directed to treat the present ‘D.B. Criminal Writ
Petition’ to ‘D.B. Civil Writ Petition’.
7. For the purpose of statistics, the present D.B. Criminal
Writ Petition is disposed of.
8. Office to check and proceed further.”
3. The foremost question to be dealt is whether, having regard
to Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, a petition
under Article 226 concerning a criminal matter or proceeding can
be separately registered as an S.B. Criminal Writ Petition, or is
required to be treated as an S.B. Civil Writ Petition for the
purposes of registration, classification and placement before the
appropriate roster?
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(6 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
Rule 315 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952
4. The the Rajasthan High Court Rules are framed in exercise of
statutory and constitutional power. Rule 1 states as under:
“These Rules are made by the High Court of judicature for
Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred by section
46 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, read with
Article 225 of the Constitution of India and all other powers
enabling it in that behalf.”
5. Rule 315 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules is placed in Part
III (Criminal Jurisdiction), Chapter XVIII. Its relevant part states
as under:
“ 315. Cases to be registered and numbered.- (I) The
following applications shall be registered and numbered
after presentation as criminal miscellaneous cases,
namely:-…
(a) to (g) xxxxxxx
(h) application for the issue of a writ under Article 226 of
the Constitution in a criminal matter;
(i) to (j) xxxxxx”
6. Rule 315(1) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules places an
application for the issue of a writ under Article 226 in a criminal
matter in the same class as an application for bail, for cancellation
of bail, for transfer of a case, under section 491 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, and for proceedings in contempt of Court.
Each of them is to be “registered and numbered after presentation
as criminal miscellaneous cases”. The Rules thus place a writ
petition in a criminal matter at par with criminal miscellaneous
cases. The nomenclature “Criminal Writ Petition” only identifies,
within that criminal class, the writ petitions so registered.
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(7 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
7. The procedure for criminal cases in Chapter XVIII applies to
such petitions from the stage of presentation. Rule 307 of the
Rajasthan High Court Rules states as under:
“Every petition of appeal or application for revision or other
application in a criminal matter shall be presented before the
official appointed for the purpose by the Registrar, who shall
immediately fix a date not more than five days ahead.”
8. Rule 850 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules (Part VIII)
provides separate Institution Registers for, among others, “(16)
Writ Cases.” and “(20) Criminal Miscellaneous Cases.” To the
extent of any inconsistency, Rule 123(1) gives primacy to the
Rules in Part III:
“Where any rule contained in Part III, IV, V or VII is
inconsistent with any rule in any other Part, the former
shall prevail and the latter shall, to the extent of such
inconsistency, be deemed to have been modified or
repealed so far as the former is concerned.”
9. A writ petition in a criminal matter is therefore registered
and entered as a criminal miscellaneous case under Rule 315(1)
(h), and not as a general writ case. The direction in Jiya to treat
such a petition as a “Civil Writ Petition” takes it out of the criminal
class altogether, contrary to Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High
Court Rules read with Rule 123(1) of the Rajasthan High Court
Rules.
10. Rule 54 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules vests the
allocation of work in Hon’ble the Chief Justice:
“Judges shall sit alone or in such Division Courts as may be
constituted from time to time and do such work as may be
allotted to them by order of the Chief Justice or in
accordance with his direction.”
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(8 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
11. Rule 134(i) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules excludes a
special appeal against a judgment of a Single Judge rendered “in
the exercise of criminal Jurisdiction”. The classification under Rule
315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules thus carries direct
legal consequences under Rule 134(i) and under the roster made
under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules.
12. The Constitution of India itself distinguishes between a “civil
proceeding” (Article 133) and a “criminal proceeding” (Article 134)
of a High Court. The finding in Jiya (supra) that “there is no such
concept of Criminal Writ Petition provided in the Constitution”
(para 2) overlooks this distinction provided in the Constitution of
India.
Difference between civil and criminal proceedings
13. The Constitution of India distinguishes between the ‘civil
proceedings’ and ‘criminal proceedings’, but the Constitution does
not create a separately enumerated constitutional jurisdiction
called “Criminal Writ Petition” does not, by itself, answer whether
the High Court may classify proceedings administratively as
criminal writ matters or criminal miscellaneous cases. The
difference between the “Civil Proceedings” and “Criminal
Proceedings” is firmly explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the ratio encapsulated in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of
2
Haryana , wherein the Court opined that “Civil proceedings” are
those in which a person seeks to enforce an alleged civil right
against another person or the State. The relief may include
declaration of rights, recovery of money, damages, compensation,
2 (2017) 5 SCC 533
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(9 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
delivery of property, enforcement of personal rights or
determination of status; whereas “Criminal proceedings”
Proceedings are those which, if carried to their conclusion, may
result in a criminal sentence, such as imprisonment, fine or
forfeiture of property. The category also encompasses certain
preventive proceedings undertaken in the larger interest of
maintaining public peace and order. For the sake of handiness the
relevant extract from the above relied judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:
"28. The Court in Ishwarlal Bhagwandas, AIR 1965 SC 1818
referred to Article 133 of the Constitution and took note of
the submission that the jurisdiction exercised by the High
Court as regards the grant of certificate pertains to
judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in a civil
proceeding and that "civil proceeding" only means a
proceeding in the nature of or triable as a civil suit and a
petition for the issue of a high prerogative writ by the High
Court was not such a proceeding. Additionally, It was urged
that even if the proceeding for issue of a writ under Article
226 of the Constitution may, in certain cases, be treated as
a civil proceeding, it cannot be so treated when the party
aggrieved seeks relief against the levy of tax or revenue
claimed to be due to the State. The Court, delving Into the
nature of civil proceedings, noted that: (AIR p. 1821, para
8)
"8.... The expression "civil proceeding" is not defined in
the Constitution, nor in the General Clauses Act. The
expression in our judgment covers all proceedings in
which a party asserts the existence of a civil right
conferred by the civil law or by statute, and claims
relief for breach thereof.
29. After so stating, the Court elucidated the nature of
criminal proceeding and, in that regard, ruled thus:
(Ishwarlal Bhagwandas case", AIR p. 1821, para 8)
"8.... A criminal proceeding on the other hand is
ordinarily one in which if carried to its conclusion it may
result in the imposition of sentences such as death,
imprisonment, fine or forfeiture of property. It also
includes proceedings in which in the larger interest of
the State, orders to prevent apprehended breach of the
peace, orders to bind down persons who are a danger
to the maintenance of peace and order, or orders
aimed at preventing vagrancy are contemplated to be
passed."
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(10 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
30. Explicating the concept further, the Court opined that:
(Ishwarlal Bhagwandas case, AIR p. 1821, para 8)

"8. The character of the proceeding, in our
judgment, depends not upon the nature of the
tribunal which is invested with authority to grant
relief, but upon the nature of the right violated
and the appropriate relief which may be claimed. "
It further held that a civil proceeding is, therefore, one
in which a person seeks to enforce by appropriate relief
the alleged infringement of his civil rights against
another person or the State, and which, if the claim is
proved, would result in the declaration, express or
implied, of the right claimed and relief such as payment
of debt, damages, compensation, delivery of specific
property, enforcement of personal rights, determination
of status, etc.
31. The aforesaid authority makes a clear distinction
between a civil proceeding and a criminal
proceeding. As far as criminal proceeding is
concerned, it clearly stipulates that a criminal
proceeding is ordinarily one which, if carried to its
conclusion, may result in imposition of (i) sentence,
and (ii) it can take within its ambit the larger
interest of the State, orders to prevent apprehended
breach of peace and orders to bind down persons
who are a danger to the maintenance of peace and
order. The Court has ruled that the character of the
proceeding does not depend upon the nature of the
tribunal which is invested with the authority to grant relief
but upon the nature of the right violated and the
appropriate relief which may be claimed.
(emphasis supplied)”
14. It is appropriate to mention here that the correctness of the
decision rendered in the matter of Ram Kishan Fauji (supra) was
doubted in the matter of Sanjay Prasad Vs. Madhusudan
3
Dwivedi and Ors. qua restricting to filing of intra-court appeal
and referred to the Larger Bench on following terms of reference :
“Does the decision in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of
Haryana, (2017) 5 SCC 533 correctly interpret the Letters
Patent governing the various high courts on maintainability
of intra-court appeals in the light of the nature of
jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution,
adverted to above? Does the ratio not, effectively, negate
3 (2026) INSC 1128
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(11 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
proper access to justice at the intra-court appellate level,
apart from creating a division in Article 226 not
contemplated by the framers of the Letters Patent or the
Constitution? Should the decision in Ram Kishan Fauji
(supra) be revisited in view of the discussions in paragraphs
49 to 51 of the opinion?”
15. Though the correctness of Ram Kishan Fauji (supra) has
been doubted and it has been referred to the Larger Bench, but
the fact remains that at present it has precedential value and it
binds us.
16. Similarly, in the matter of Pay 10 Services Pvt. Ltd. V.
4
Union of India , the Delhi High Court observed that the nature of
the dispute, the genesis of the proceedings and the relief sought
must be considered when deciding whether a petition belongs to
the civil or criminal side. It did not treat the nomenclature alone
as determinative of constitutional jurisdiction.
17. Further, the ratio passed by the Division Bench of High Court
of Bombay in the matter of M/s Nagpur Cable Operators’
5
Association v. Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and Anr.
also holds substance. The relevant extract from the same is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“21. In the light of the aforesaid legal position explaining
the nature of proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution, and the classification whether the said
proceeding is civil or criminal, when the provisions of the
Appellate Side Rules are looked into, it would be found that
all applications under Article 227 of the Constitution
challenging the orders and decisions of the Courts
constituted under the Criminal Procedure Code are dealt
with on the side of criminal business of the Appellate Side
of this Court, but the said clause (i) of Part II, Criminal of
Rule 2 of Chapter I is not all exhaustive. Rule 2B of Chapter
I, as observed above, states that all petitions/applications
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution arising out of or
relating to the order of penalty or confiscation or an order
4 W.P.(c) 1592/2026
5 . 1995 SCC OnLine Bom 241
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(12 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
in the nature thereof or an order otherwise of penal
character and passed under any Special Statute shall be
heard and decided by the Division Bench hearing writ
petitions. This rule only allocates that the class of
petitions/applications under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the
Constitution of India mentioned in Rule 2-B shall be decided
by the Division Bench hearing writ petitions, but does not
classify the nature of proceedings whether the said writ
petition/application shall be criminal or civil writ petition.
Applying the tests laid down by the Apex Court in Narayan
Row's case (supra), we are of the view that if the writ
petition/application under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the
Constitution arises out of or relates to a proceeding in
which, if carried to its conclusion ultimately it may result in
sentence of death or by way of imprisonment, fine or
forfeiture of the property then such writ petition/application
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or under
Article 227 of the Constitution, should be treated as a
“criminal writ petition” and styled as such. For hearing and
decision of such petition, it should be listed before the
Division Bench allocated such business by Hon'ble the Chief
Justice or if it pertains to the single Judge jurisdiction,
before the Bench assigned such work. As regards
petitions/applications under Article 226 of the Constitution
seeking writs or orders in the nature of habeas corpus, Rule
1 of Chapter XXVIII of Appellate Side Rules, also provides
only allocation of such writ petitions to the Division Bench
taking criminal business of the Appellate Side of the High
Court. Obviously, since the petitions/applications under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writs
of habeas corpus arise out of the unlawful detention, in its
very nature, such petitions too should be styled as criminal
writ petitions. Criminal writ petitions would also cover those
writ petitions which arise out of the orders and the matters
relating to prevention or breach of peace or maintenance of
peace and order or such orders aimed at preventing
vagrancy contemplated to be passed . “Criminal writ
petition‟ shall also take in its embrace the
petitions/applications under Article 226 or 227 of the
Constitution of India if it arises out of or relates to
investigation, enquiry or trial of the offences either
under special or general statute. When a statute
commands or prohibits an act, disobedience of such
statute is prima facie criminal unless criminal
proceedings are excluded by such statute and the
petitions/applications under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India in connection thereto or
arising therefrom would be criminal proceeding and
should be styled as “Criminal Writ Petition‟. However,
such cases are to be distinguished from the cases where an
act may be prohibited or commanded by the statute in such
a manner that the person contravening the provision is
liable to pecuniary penalty and such recovery is to be made
a civil debt. In such type of cases the contravention would
not be a crime and, therefore, petitions/applications under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India arising
therefrom would not be criminal proceeding.
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(13 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
22. We would, therefore, direct the Registrar (Appellate
Side), the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to take steps
in implementing the following directions immediately:-
(i) Every petition/application under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India should be
styled as 'Civil Writ Petition' or 'Criminal Writ
Petition', as the case may be.
(ii) Every petition/application under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India presented
through the Counsel or where such
petition/application is presented in person, should
be accompanied by the Certificate of the counsel
or petitioner in person, as the case may be, that
such petition/application is 'Criminal Writ Petition'
or 'Civil Writ Petition'.
(iii) The Registry should examine such Writ
Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India styled as "Civil Writ Petition"
or "Criminal Writ Petition" by finding out the
nature of the relief/reliefs claimed in such writ
petition and the grounds of such relief/reliefs and
if the Registry finds that the Writ Petition has
been wrongly styled, such objection must be
raised.
(iv) Civil Writ Petitions should be registered by the
office in the separate Register under the title,
"Civil Writ Petitions Under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India". Expression 'Special Civil
Applications' occurring in clause (vi) of Rule 10 of
Chapter V of Appellate Side Rules be read as 'Civil
Writ Petitions'. This is so done to continue with
the existing practice since 1980.
(v) Criminal Writ Petitions should be registered
under the separate head in Register maintained by
the office bearing the title, "Applications under the
Constitution" under Chapter XXVI, Rule 4(6) of
Appellate Side Rules.
(Emphasis supplied)”
Answer to question No. (i)
18. Having considered Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High
Court Rules, we find that this provision expressly contemplates an
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(14 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
application for issuance of a writ under Article 226 of the
Constitution in a criminal matter and mandates that the
applications enumerated under Rule 315(1) be registered and
numbered as criminal miscellaneous cases. The express inclusion
of such writ applications cannot be rendered otiose by treating the
criminal nature of the underlying proceedings as wholly irrelevant
to their procedural classification.
19. Thus, a petition under Article 226 arising from a criminal
matter be classified and assigned to the criminal side in
accordance with the applicable High Court Rules and roster, as the
provision enumerated in Rule 315(1)(h) expressly contemplates
registration as a criminal case; the use of the words “shall be
registered” is mandatory in form.
Answer to question No. (ii)
20. The next issue before us is, whether the nomenclature
“Criminal Writ Petition” is merely a matter of Registry classification
or whether such classification reflects the substantive character of
a proceeding arising from criminal jurisdiction?
21. The power to issue a writ arises from Article 226. Though the
‘civil proceedings’ finds place in Article 133 of the Constitution of
India and the ‘criminal proceedings’ finds place in Article 134 of
the Constitution of India. The Constitution does not create
separate constitutional powers called “civil writ jurisdiction” and
“criminal writ jurisdiction”. Nevertheless, the High Court may
distribute its judicial business between different Benches
according to the nature of the proceedings, subject matter and
applicable roster. The nomenclature “Criminal Writ Petition”
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(15 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
cannot be regarded as a mere administrative label devoid of legal
significance. Where a writ petition arises out of criminal
proceedings and seeks relief affecting their initiation,
investigation, continuation or consequences, its classification must
have due regard to the substantive nature of the controversy, the
relief sought and the applicable High Court Rules. At the same
time, the nomenclature does not independently confer or
determine the constitutional jurisdiction of the Court.
Consequently, the nomenclature has two dimensions:
21.1 Formal dimension: The case title, registration code
and numbering system are administrative matters governed by
the High Court's Rules and valid directions.
21.2 Substantive dimension: The nature of the
proceedings may determine which Bench is competent under the
notified roster to hear the petition.
22. Although Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules
uses the expression criminal miscellaneous case, rather than
expressly prescribing the title Criminal Writ Petition, it provides a
substantial textual basis for the proposition that criminal-matter
writ applications are contemplated within the criminal-side
procedural framework. The precise nomenclature to be used by
the Registry must be determined by construing the Rule as a
whole and reconciling it with the applicable judicial directions.
6
23. In the matter of Ambalal Parihar v. State of Rajasthan ,
the Supreme Court emphasised that a petition arising from
criminal proceedings could not be treated as a civil writ petition
6 . Criminal Appeal No. 3233/2023; 2023 INSC 943
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(16 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
merely to secure hearing before a Bench not assigned criminal-
writ matters. The Court directed that the petition be converted
and placed before the appropriate roster Bench.
24. The Kerala High Court, in the matter of N. Prakash v.
7
Manoj Kumar , decided 30.01.2025, likewise examined the
substance of the dispute and the consequences of the proceedings
when considering whether the petition was criminal or civil. On the
other hand, Jiy (supra) a held that the Constitution does not
provide for a separate category called a “Criminal Writ Petition”
and directed the Registry not to use that nomenclature. These
positions can potentially be reconciled by distinguishing the
constitutional source of jurisdiction from administrative
classification. A proceeding may remain an Article 226 writ
petition in constitutional terms while being assigned to a criminal
roster under the applicable rules.
25. The nomenclature is, in form, a matter of Registry
classification; however, the classification cannot always be
dismissed as a purely clerical or statistical exercise. Where the
classification determines placement before a particular roster
Bench, it has substantive consequences for the orderly
administration of justice. The classification should therefore reflect
the true nature of the dispute and the applicable roster, without
suggesting that the Constitution itself creates an independent
jurisdiction called “Criminal Writ Petition”.
7 . W.A. No. 1803/2024
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(17 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
Answer to question No. (iii)
26. The third issue before us is whether Rule 315(1)(h) of the
Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952, which
expressly contemplates registration of an application for issuance
of a writ under Article 226 “in a criminal matter”, can be rendered
inoperative or ignored by a judicial direction without holding the
Rule to be ultra vires or unconstitutional?
27. Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules is an
express procedural provision. It provides for registration and
numbering as criminal miscellaneous cases of applications seeking
a writ under Article 226 in a criminal matter. The Rule was framed
under the High Court's rule-making authority, including and in
consonance with the provisions of Article 225 of the Constitution
and the relevant enabling provisions. It must be read as part of
the procedural framework governing the Court. It can be deduced
that three principles are material. First, a rule cannot simply be
disregarded while it remains operative. A judicial interpretation
may determine the scope of a rule, reconcile it with another
provision or identify a valid exception. But if a provision is held to
be invalid, that conclusion must rest on an appropriate legal basis;
second, there is a presumption in favour of harmonious
construction. Where a rule and a judicial direction can reasonably
be read together, the Court should endeavour to give effect to
both rather than assume that one nullifies the other; and third,
the Chief Justice's authority over roster allocation is distinct from
the High Court's rule-making authority. In the ratio encapsulated
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(18 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
8
in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand the Hon’ble Supreme
Court affirmed that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster
and that Judges must exercise judicial business in accordance with
the allocation made by the Chief Justice.
28. That principle supports proper allocation of cases; it does not
mean that a roster direction automatically repeals or invalidates a
procedural rule.
29. If the direction issued in Jiya (supra) is interpreted to
require every writ petition involving a criminal matter to be
registered as a civil writ petition and thereby to displace the
classification expressly contemplated by Rule 315(1)(h) of the
Rajasthan High Court Rules, a more substantial question of
reconciliation arises. Thus, it should not be assumed unless it
follows from the actual operative directions and their proper
construction.
30. Therefore, Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules
cannot be treated as having ceased to operate merely because a
judicial direction has changed or restricted a case nomenclature.
The Rule must either be given effect through a harmonious
interpretation of the relevant directions or be addressed through a
legally sustainable determination concerning its scope or validity.
There is no automatic requirement to declare the Rule
unconstitutional merely to resolve a nomenclature dispute.
Equally, a judicial direction should not be construed as silently
repealing an operative rule.
8 . (1998) 1 SCC 1
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(19 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
Answer to question No. (iv)
th
31. The next issue before us is, whether the order dated 7 July,
2026 passed by the Division Bench in the matter of Jiya (supra)
to the extent that it directs that no petition be registered as a
“Criminal Writ Petition” and that a writ petition relating to a
criminal matter can only be registered as a “Civil Writ Petition”, is
reconcilable with Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court
Rules?
32. The relevant directions issued in the matter of Jiya (supra)
are that the Constitution does not provide a separate category
called a “Criminal Writ Petition”. A writ petition may raise issues
relating to a criminal matter but should not be treated as a
“Criminal Writ Petition”; and therefore the Registry should not
register any case under that nomenclature.
33. The fact remains is that Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan
High Court Rules, being an express provision of the Rajasthan
High Court Rules, cannot be rendered nugatory by a direction
concerning nomenclature or registration without a proper
construction of the Rule and the legal basis for doing so. The Rule
expressly contemplates an application under Article 226 of the
Constitution “in a criminal matter” and provides for its registration
and numbering as a criminal miscellaneous case. It therefore
recognises that a writ application may arise in a criminal matter
and prescribes a corresponding procedural classification.
34. The fact that Article 226 does not separately enumerate a
constitutional remedy bearing the title “Criminal Writ Petition”
does not, by itself, invalidate that procedural classification. Article
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(20 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
226 confers the constitutional jurisdiction; the High Court Rules
regulate the manner in which proceedings within that jurisdiction
are instituted, registered and processed. A procedural
nomenclature does not create a new constitutional jurisdiction, but
neither does the absence of that nomenclature in the
constitutional text necessarily prohibit its use under valid
procedural Rules.
35. The direction in Jiya (supra) that no petition be registered as
a “Criminal Writ Petition” raises a direct question of consistency
with Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules. The
stronger interpretation in favour of maintainability is that a judicial
direction concerning nomenclature ought not to be construed as
extinguishing the procedural category expressly contemplated by
the Rule, unless the Rule is lawfully amended, held inapplicable, or
otherwise authoritatively construed to permit that result. The
official text of the Rules confirms that Rule 315(1)(h) of the
Rajasthan High Court Rules expressly includes writ applications
under Article 226 in criminal matters.
36. Accordingly, it is noted that Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan
High Court Rules should be given effect, and a criminal-matter
writ petition should be maintainable and registered in accordance
with the criminal-side procedure prescribed by that Rule. The
precise title “Criminal Writ Petition” should follow the applicable
Rules and valid Registry practice; the Rule’s express text supports
criminal-side registration, although it describes the resulting
registration as a “criminal miscellaneous case”.
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(21 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
37. Thus, the direction in Jiya (supra) to the extent that it
excludes criminal-side registration contrary to Rule 315(1)(h) of
the Rajasthan High Court Rules is per incuriam , having failed to
give due effect to the express statutory provision. The preamble of
law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the matter
9
of State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd . , recognises
that a decision rendered in ignorance of a statute or binding
authority may attract the doctrine of per incuriam. Accordingly, to
that extent, the ratio in Jiya (supra) cannot prevail over the
express mandate of Rule 315(1)(h), and criminal writ petitions
shall be registered and processed in accordance with the said Rule
and impugned direction in Jiya (supra) is held to be per incuriam .
Answer to question No. (v)
38. The last issue before us is, whether, in the event of an
irreconcilable conflict being found between the order dated 7 July
2026 in Jiya and Rule 315(1)(h) of the the Rajasthan High Court
Rules, reconsideration by a Larger Bench is required to avoid
inconsistency with the Rule?
39. Having regard to the questions arising for consideration, this
Court is of the considered view that authoritative interpretation by
a Larger Bench was necessary. The directions issued by the
Division Bench in Jiya (supra) dated 07.07.2026, have given rise ,
to an apparent inconsistency with the express language of Rule
315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, which specifically
contemplates applications under Article 226 of the Constitution in
9 .(1991) 4 SCC 139
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(22 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
criminal matters and provides for their registration and numbering
as criminal miscellaneous cases.
40. The aforesaid directions have also occasioned uncertainty
regarding the appropriate classification, registration and listing of
such proceedings, thereby creating practical difficulties and
confusion amongst members of the Bar as well as the Registry.
The issue assumes further significance in view of the established
practice of entertaining criminal writ petitions before this Court
over the years and the procedural practice followed by other High
Courts in entertaining writ petitions arising out of criminal
matters, inter alia :
(a) Delhi High Court : W.P. (Crl.)
(b) Kerela High Court : W.P. (Crl.)
(c) Bombay High Court : Criminal Writ Petition
(d) Jharkhand High Court : Cr. WJC
(e) Patna High Court : Cr. WJC
41. Judicial consistency, certainty in procedure and uniformity in
the administration of justice demand that an express provision of
the High Court Rules and a judicial direction apparently operating
in different directions be harmoniously construed. The continued
existence of uncertainty in the registration and allocation of such
petitions may result in avoidable procedural objections,
inconsistent treatment of litigants and uncertainty in the
placement of matters before the appropriate Bench.
42. It is a settled principle that judicial discipline requires
consistency in the interpretation and application of procedural
Rules, while an apparent conflict between a judicial direction and
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(23 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
an express statutory or procedural provision warrants careful and
authoritative examination. The question is not merely one of
nomenclature, but concerns the interpretation and operational
effect of Rule 315(1)(h), the procedural classification of writ
petitions arising from criminal matters, and the consequent
allocation of such proceedings to the appropriate roster.
Our answer to the Reference:
43. Our answer to the referred questions is as under:
(i) That the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India concerning criminal matter or proceeding is separately
registered as S.B. Criminal Writ Petition for the purposes of
registration, classification and shall be placed before the
appropriate Bench in accordance with Rule 315(h) of the
Rajasthan High Court Rules.
44. In view of the foregoing discussion and the ratio
encapsulated in Ram Kishan Fauji (Supra), Nagpur Cable
Operators’ Association (supra) and N. Prakash v. Manoj
Kumar and Ors. (supra), we are of the considered opinion that
the interpretation adopted in Jiya & Others v. Government of
Rajasthan & Others (supra) , to the extent that it prohibits the
registration of writ petitions arising out of criminal matters as
‘Criminal Writ Petitions’, is per incuriam and fails to give due effect
to the express provisions of Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High
Court Rules. The said Rule specifically contemplates applications
under Article 226 of the Constitution in criminal matters and
provides for their registration and numbering as criminal
miscellaneous cases. The statutory prescription cannot be
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(24 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
rendered otiose by an interpretation that disregards its express
language and intended procedural operation.
45. Thus, to the extent that the aforesaid decision in Jiya
(supra) failed to consider or give effect to the statutory mandate
embodied in Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, its
ratio, insofar as it prohibits criminal-side registration of such writ
applications, is held to be per incuriam , having been rendered in
ignorance of, or without due consideration of, a relevant statutory
provision. It is a settled proposition that actus curiae neminem
gravabit, an act of the Court shall prejudice no person, and that
procedural classification must facilitate, rather than obstruct, the
lawful exercise of jurisdiction. The classification of a petition as a
‘Criminal Writ Petition’ does not create an independent
constitutional jurisdiction; it identifies the procedural character of
a writ proceeding arising from a criminal matter and must be
understood in conjunction with the constitutional jurisdiction under
Article 226 and the applicable High Court Rules.
46. Upon examination of the decision in Jiya & Others (supra) ,
we are of the considered view that the direction therein, insofar as
it prescribes the registration of writ petitions arising out of
criminal matters as Criminal Writ Petitions, is in the nature of an
opinion-based direction, rather than a proposition of law founded
upon a comprehensive consideration of the governing statutory
framework. The said direction, having failed to duly consider the
express mandate of Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court
Rules, and its interplay with the constitutional jurisdiction under
Article 226, cannot be permitted to eclipse the
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(25 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
statutory scheme. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again
held that a decision rendered in ignorance of the terms of a
statute or a rule having the force of law may be treated as per
10
incuriam, while in State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. ,
the Court explained the doctrine as per ignoratium . Applying the
aforesaid principles, the ratio in Jiya (supra), to the extent that it
disregards the statutory prescription under Rule 315(1)(h), is per
incuriam and cannot be treated as laying down a binding
proposition contrary to the express Rules of this Court. The
statutory and long standing mandate/classification, where the
Registry has been registering criminal-matter writ petitions must
prevail , and criminal-matter writ petitions shall, therefore, be
entertained and registered in accordance with Rule 315(1)(h) and
the applicable Rules of this Court.
47. Accordingly, we hold that the direction issued in the matter
of Jiya (supra), to the extent indicated hereinabove, cannot be
approved insofar as it directs that writ applications concerning
criminal matters shall not be registered and processed under the
criminal-side procedural framework contemplated by Rule 315(1)
(h). Writ petitions arising out of criminal matters are maintainable
under Article 226 of the Constitution and shall be registered and
processed in accordance with Rule 315(1)(h) and the other
applicable Rules of this Court.
DIRECTIONS:
48. In view of the observations noted ad supra, we hereby give
the following directions:
10 . (1991) 4 SCC 139
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(26 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
48.1. The declaration of law made herein shall operate
prospectively from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.
All judgments, final orders and proceedings already concluded
prior to the date of this judgment shall remain undisturbed and
shall not be reopened or rendered invalid merely by reason of the
present determination.
48.2. The Registry of this Court is directed to entertain,
register and process writ petitions arising out of criminal matters
under the nomenclature of “Criminal Writ Petition”, in accordance
with Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rules of the Rajasthan High Court
Rules, and the other applicable Rules and long standing practice
of the Court.
48.3. In respect to the criminal writ petitions concerning
criminal matters that are pending as on the date of this
judgment but have been registered under a different
nomenclature, the Registry shall re-register the same as “Criminal
Writ Petition” and shall place the writ petition before the
appropriate Bench having the roster. Such a re-registration and
re-classification will be done within a period of two weeks from
today and it will be done expeditiously so that it may not affect
the hearing of those writ petitions.
48.4. All writ petitions instituted after the pronouncement of
this judgment, which arise out of criminal matters and fall within
the ambit of Rule 315(1)(h), shall be categorised and registered
as “Criminal Writ Petitions” and placed before the appropriate
Bench in accordance with the roster and applicable Rules of this
Court.
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(27 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
48.5. The Registrar (Judicial) shall issue the necessary
administrative instructions to ensure uniform implementation of
these directions and to obviate any ambiguity in the registration,
classification and listing of criminal writ proceedings.
49. It is clarified that the prospective operation of this judgment
is intended to preserve the finality of matters already adjudicated,
while ensuring consistent and uniform application of the law
declared herein to proceedings instituted hereafter and pending
matters dealt with in accordance with the foregoing directions.
50. The reference is answered accordingly.
51. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance
rendered by Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Advocate General
assisted by Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma & Ms. Dhriti Laddha, Mr.
Rajesh Choudhary, GA cum AAG, Mr. Nitin Jain, Ms. Kriti
Kalawatia, Mr. Vaibhav Pareek, Mr. Rajeev Bhushan Bansal, Ms.
Ritu Bansal, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Mr. Vaibhav Nirmal, Mr. Shubham
Rohila, Mr. Vedant Agarwal, Mr. Swapnil Upman, Mr. Naman
Maheshwari, Mr. Vishwas Fatehpuria, Mr. Parmeshwar Lal Pilania,
Mr. Avi Airun, Mr. Rajesh Kala, Mr. Jitendra Mitruka, Mr. Aniroodh
Mathur, Mr. Krishnveer Singh, Mr. Naman Yadav, Mr. Punit Singhvi,
Mr. Kapil Gupta, Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Mr. Tanay Choudhary,
learned Members of Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur
Bench and Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Adv. With
Ms. Sheetal Kumbhat, Mr. Dilip Singh Udawat, Mr. Arun Kumar
Jhajhariya, Mr. Harshit Bhurani, Mr. Raunak Singhvi, Mr. Anshuman
Singh Champawat, Ms. Kamini Joshi, Mr. Aniruddh Kothari, Mr.
Maheshwar Singh Bhati, Mr. Yash Tripathi, Mr. Shivam Harsh, Mr.
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)

(28 of 28)
[2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB] [CREF-2/2026]
Moti Singh, Mr. Sumit Singhal, Dr. RDSS Kharlia, Mr. Chandan
Singh Jodha, Mr. Pradeep Rajpurohit, Mr. Kailash Sharma, Mr.
Siddharth Tanwar, Mr. Dungar Dan Charan, Mr. Bharat Gurjar,
learned Members of the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association,
Jodhpur, who appeared and made submissions in arriving at the
aforesaid conclusion.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (SAMEER JAIN),J (SANJAY K. AGRAWAL),CJ
N.GANDHI/RESERVED
(Uploaded on 02/11/2026 at 06:28:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/11/2026 at 08:27:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)