Intra-court appeal is not maintainable against a Single Judge’s order passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

The appellants were appointed as Pharmacists in the Public Health and Family Welfare Department based on caste certificates certifying them as belonging to the "Manjhi" Scheduled Tribe.

Following a complaint, an FIR (Crime No. 07/2025) was registered against them under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC for allegedly obtaining employment through fraudulent caste certificates.

The appellants filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the FIR and a direction to refer the matter to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee.

A Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 28-01-2026.

The appellants challenged this dismissal through the present writ appeals.

Whether a writ appeal is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution when the relief sought is the quashing of criminal proceedings.

The court primarily applied Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, which permits intra-court appeals only against orders passed in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction under Article 226.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents in *Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana* (2017) and *Ishwarlal Bhagwandas*, which established that the character of a proceeding (civil or criminal) depends on the nature of the right violated and the relief sought, rather than the form of the petition.

The court further applied the Full Bench ruling in *Shailendra Kumar v. Divisional Forest Officer*, which clarified that no intra-court appeal lies against orders passed in criminal matters.

The court reasoned that although the appellants labeled their petition as one under Article 226, the substance of the relief—quashing an FIR—is essentially an invocation of the court's criminal jurisdiction, akin to a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Referring to *Ram Kishan Fauji*, the court noted that "criminal jurisdiction" encompasses the inception and consequences of a criminal proceeding; therefore, an order refusing to quash an FIR is an exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

Since the Adhiniyam, 2005 only contemplates appeals from original civil/writ jurisdiction, and the Full Bench in *Shailendra Kumar* expressly barred appeals in criminal matters, the court found the nature of the dispute to be outside the scope of a Writ Appeal.

The court also noted that the prayer to prevent "coercive action" was merely a "garb" for seeking anticipatory bail, further cementing the criminal nature of the proceedings.

The Division Bench dismissed both Writ Appeal No. 450/2026 and Writ Appeal No. 456/2026.