Patna HC Dismisses Pawan Kumar’s Vigilance Case Writ After Cognizance, Says Criminal Court Order Challenges Under Article 227 Belong In Criminal Misc Jurisdiction

The petitioner sought to quash Special Vigilance Unit P.S. Case No. 05/2025, registered under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that an earlier case involved the same allegations.

He also sought protection from coercive action.

By interlocutory applications, he sought protection in response to a summons and challenged the Special Judge’s cognizance order.

The judgment refers to that order as dated 13 July 2024 in describing the application, but as dated 13 July 2026 in its concluding discussion.

The Court raised the maintainability of the petition, which invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Article 226 confers writ jurisdiction, while Article 227 confers distinct supervisory jurisdiction; a petition under Article 227 is not interchangeable with a writ petition under Article 226 (Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423; Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329).

Under Part A, Chapter XII, Rule 3(v) of the Patna High Court Rules, a petition under Article 227 concerning an order or proceeding before a Criminal Court must be filed under Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction.

The Court also applied the principle in Neeta Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh that a petition’s nomenclature and substance, as well as the roster assignment of the judge, matter; a judge cannot treat an Article 226 petition as one under Article 227 unless assigned that jurisdiction.

It distinguished Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, where the petition also invoked Section 528 of the BNSS and the same Bench had roster jurisdiction over both forms of proceeding.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni because that case involved Section 528 of the BNSS as well as Article 226, and the relevant Bench had jurisdiction under both.

Although the petitioner had invoked Article 227, the Patna High Court Rules required a challenge to a criminal court proceeding under that provision to be instituted as a Criminal Miscellaneous matter; the roster for Article 227 had not been assigned to the judge hearing this petition.

The Court held that the Criminal Writ subject classification relied on by the petitioner did not override the Rules, because the classification had not been brought into conformity with the 2016 amendment to the Rules.

Applying Neeta Singh, the Court concluded that the petition could not be treated as an Article 227 proceeding before a judge without the relevant roster assignment.

It therefore held that, after the cognizance order, the present writ petition was not maintainable.

It disposed of all pending interlocutory applications and directed the office to take steps to amend the Subject Code Classification to align it with the Patna High Court Rules.