Pawan Kumar vs The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1926 of 2025
CNR No. BRHC010705302025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2025 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
Pawan Kumar S/O Late Shailender Kumar Singh R/O House No. 02, Shanti
Kunj, S K Vihar, P.S- Beur, Dist- Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of
Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
Bihar
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. Bihar
4. The Superintendent of Police, Special Vigilance Unit, Bihar, Patna. Bihar
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Vigilance Unit, Bihar, Patna.
Bihar
6. The Directorate of Enforcement, through the Director, Pravartan Bhawan,
APJ Abdul Kalam Road New Delhi, 110011.
7. The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna Zonal Office, First
Floor, Chandpura Place Bank Road, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
Mr.Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Simran Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Abhilasha Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Abhinav Mishra, GA-6
Ms. Archisha Singh, AC to GA-6
Mr. Hardik Dimania, Advocate
For the ED : Mr. Zohaib Hossain, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Prabaht Kumar Singh, Retainer counsel, ED
Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Advocate
For SVU : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-11-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
02. The present petition has been filed seeking

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1926 of 2025 dt.06-11-2026
2/11
following reliefs:-
"i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari for
quashing Special Vigilance Unit P.S. Case
No. 05/2025 dated 30.04.2025 registered
under section 7(A), 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as
amended 2018) and section 3(2), 6(2) and
15 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and
section 61, 318(4), 338 and 340(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on the
ground that for the same set of allegations
earlier Special Vigilance Unit had registered
Special Vigilance Unit P.S. Case No.
05/2024 dated 14.09.2024.
ii) To issue further appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the Respondents not to take
any coercive steps against the Petitioner in
connection with Special Vigilance Unit P.S.
Case No. 05/2025 dated 30.04.2025 during
pendency of this case.
iii) To grant/award any other relief or reliefs
which the Petitioner may be found entitled to
in the facts and circumstances of the case."
03. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an
interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 01/2026 seeking
following relief:

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1926 of 2025 dt.06-11-2026
3/11
“(iv) To issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the Respondents not to take any
coercive steps against the Petitioner pursuant to
the summons being issued to the petitioner under
Section 179 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, in connection Special Vigilance Unit P.S.
Case No. 05/2025 dated 30.04.2025, subject to the
petitioner co-operating with the investigation.”
04. Further, the petitioner has filed another
Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No. 02/2026 seeking
following relief(s):
“(vi) To issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the order dated 13.07.2024 passed by
Learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna,
whereby an whereunder the Learned Special
Judge, Vigilance, Patna has taken cognizance
of offences under Section 7A, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, read
with Section 3(2), 6(2) and 15 of the Official
Secrets Act 1923 and Section 61, 318(4), 338,
340(2) of the BNS, on wholly erroneous
grounds by completely overlooking the relevant
and vital material available on record and also
by ignoring the facts and circumstances of the
case”
05. When confronted with the query regarding the

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1926 of 2025 dt.06-11-2026
4/11
maintainability of the present writ petition, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that, since the instant writ petition has
been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the same for the
purpose of quashing Special Vigilance Unit P.S. Case No.
05/2025 dated 30.04.2025 registered under section 7(A), 8, 9, 10
and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended
2018) and section 3(2), 6(2) and 15 of the Official Secrets Act,
1923 and section 61, 318(4), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well as for quashing the order dated
13.07.2024 passed by Learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna,
whereby an whereunder the Learned Special Judge, Vigilance,
Patna has taken cognizance of offences under Section 7A, 8, 9,
10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, read with
Section 3(2), 6(2) and 15 of the Official Secrets Act 1923 and
Section 61, 318(4), 338, 340(2) of the BNS.
06. In support of his submissions, learned counsel
for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgments rendered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeta Singh & Ors. v. The
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 5761, and Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948 .

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1926 of 2025 dt.06-11-2026
5/11
Learned counsel submits that, in Neeta Singh (supra) , the writ
petition was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous
upon the order taking cognizance having been passed,
particularly in view of the fact that the said writ petition had
been instituted exclusively under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. He further submits that, in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni
(supra) , the petition before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court
had been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023. Learned counsel thus submits that it is in this
context, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified the factual
distinction between the petition instituted before the Hon’ble
Allahabad High Court in Neeta Singh (supra) and that
instituted before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Pradnya
Pranjal Kulkarni (supra) . Learned counsel for the petitioner
therefore, submits that a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India remains maintainable for seeking quashing
of the FIR until the stage of taking cognizance, and that, upon
an order taking cognizance being passed, the jurisdiction of the
High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, as well as
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, continues to
remain available.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1926 of 2025 dt.06-11-2026
6/11
07. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that, under the Subject Code Classification of this
Court, Group 54 pertains to Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Cases
and is further classified into sixteen distinct subject categories,
all of which are assigned to a Single Judge. He points out that
Subject No. 4 relates to matters concerning quashing of
FIR/charge-sheet, whereas Subject No. 10 specifically pertains
to matters arising out of judicial orders. He further contends
that, as per the constitution of Benches of this Court, all matters
falling under the various subject categories of Group 54 are
assigned to the same Bench.
08. Learned counsel thus concludes by submitting
that a writ petition expressly invoking both Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India cannot be rendered infructuous
merely by placing reliance upon the decision in Neeta Singh
(supra) and the maintainability of such petition is required to be
examined in the nature of jurisdiction invoked, the roster
competence of the Bench and the reliefs sought therein. Learned
counsel, therefore, submits that a conjoint reading of the
decisions rendered in Neeta Singh (supra) and Pradnya
Pranjal Kulkarni (supra) , together with the Subject Code
Classification and the constitution of Benches of the this Court,

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1926 of 2025 dt.06-11-2026
7/11
makes it evident that an order taking cognizance is amenable to
challenge by way of a Criminal Writ Petition invoking the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
09. I find the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner to be fallacious. Though learned
counsel has rightly pointed out the factual distinctions between
the decisions rendered in Neeta Singh (supra) and Pradnya
Pranjal Kulkarni (supra) , he has failed to appreciate a material
aspect of the latter decision. In Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni
(supra) , the petition was instituted not merely under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, but also by invoking Section 528 of
the BNSS, 2023. It was in this backdrop that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that, since the same Bench was vested
with the roster jurisdiction to entertain matters both under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the
BNSS, 2023, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High
Court could have entertained the prayer for quashing of the FIR,
charge-sheet as well as the order taking cognizance.
10. So far as filing of the writ petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India is concerned, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. Chhabi

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1926 of 2025 dt.06-11-2026
8/11
Nath & Ors. , reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 has held that
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
distinct from writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further
held in the same case that in some High Courts there is tendency
of entertaining petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India by terming them as writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs.Rajendra
Shankar Patil, reported in (2010)8 SCC 329 has also made it
clear that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India no writ
could be entertained. In conformity with these judicial
pronouncements, the Patna High Court Rules was amended on
14.03.2016 and Part A, Chapter XII, Sub Rule (v) of Rule 3 of
Patna High Court Rules was incorporated which provides as
under:
“(v) Petitioner under Article-227 of the
Constitution of India in respect of any order or any
proceeding before any Criminal Court would be
filed in Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction.”
Therefore, under Patna High Court Rules a petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India needs to be filed
under Criminal Miscellaneous jurisdiction. It is also pertinent to
note here that the roster of Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has not been assigned to this Court.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1926 of 2025 dt.06-11-2026
9/11
11. So far as the further contention advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner, with regard to the Subject
Code Classification of this Court, is concerned, it is submitted
that Group 54, pertaining to Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Cases, is
divided into sixteen distinct subject categories, including
Subject No. 10, which specifically relates to Criminal Writ
Petitions arising out of judicial orders. However, it appears the
said subject classification has not been amended to bring it in
conformity with the amendment dated 14.03.2016, whereby Part
A, Chapter XII, Rule 3, Sub-rule (v) of the Patna High Court
Rules came into force, though subject of 'Criminal
Miscellaneous under Article 227' has been put under Group 50
in the Constitution of Benches. The aforesaid rule specifically
stipulates that a petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in criminal
matters, is required to be instituted as a Criminal Miscellaneous
Jurisdiction. Therefore, even insistence of the learned counsel
for the petitioner on this aspect is misplaced. In this regard, this
Court would be failing in its duty if it were to disregard the
nomenclature of ‘Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction’
prescribed under the aforesaid Rules. In Neeta Singh (Supra)
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 15 has held as under:-
“15. In view of the decision in Prakash

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1926 of 2025 dt.06-11-2026
10/11
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 hear 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 Judge)
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.”
12. In light of the discussions made herein above as
well as the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after
passing of cognizance order dated 13.07.2026, the present writ
petition has not remained maintainable and hence the same is
dismissed.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1926 of 2025 dt.06-11-2026
11/11
13. All pending interlocutory applications are
disposed of.
14. In the light of discussion hereinbefore, office is
directed to take necessary steps for amendment in the Subject
Code Classification of the Court to bring it in conformity with
the Patna High Court Rules.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 06.11.2026
Transmission Date 06.11.2026