Criminal writ jurisdiction cannot grant compensation or direct disciplinary proceedings; civil writ remedy lies.

The petitioner approached the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking compensation for alleged infringement of his Article 21 rights and disciplinary/departmental action against the Station House Officer, Chautham Police Station, for allegedly failing to register an FIR on his written complaint disclosing a cognizable offence.

The petitioner relied on Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 410, and the principle stated in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, concerning action against police officers who fail to register an FIR in appropriate cases.

Whether a criminal writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for seeking compensation for alleged infringement of the petitioner’s fundamental rights.

Whether a criminal writ petition is maintainable for seeking disciplinary or departmental proceedings against a police officer for allegedly failing to register an FIR.

Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy before the competent forum.

The Court held that the maintainability of a criminal writ depends on whether the relief falls within the recognized categories of criminal writ jurisdiction, including quashing of FIRs or proceedings, police protection, proper investigation, police harassment, registration of FIRs, custody-related reliefs, and other specified criminal matters.

It relied on S.A.L. Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas, (1965) 57 ITR 149, for the principle that proceedings seeking enforcement of civil rights and consequential relief such as damages or compensation are civil proceedings.

The Court distinguished the principles concerning police officers’ failure to register FIRs discussed in Lalita Kumari and quoted in Imran Pratapgadhi, holding that the nature of the relief sought, rather than the fact that the underlying dispute arose from a criminal matter, determines the appropriate jurisdiction.

The Court found the petitioner’s reliance on the criminal context of the alleged misconduct misconceived. Although the grievance concerned the alleged non-registration of an FIR, the reliefs actually sought were compensation and initiation of disciplinary or departmental proceedings against the SHO.

Those remedies entail civil consequences and did not fall within any of the enumerated categories of criminal writ jurisdiction, including the category relating to registration of FIRs. Applying the principle in S.A.L. Narayan Row, the Court held that the character of the final relief governs jurisdiction; accordingly, the petition could not be entertained as a criminal writ merely because the alleged misconduct arose in connection with a criminal proceeding.

The writ petition was disposed of without granting the reliefs sought. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.