Writ Appeal is not maintainable against an order passed under Article 226 exercising criminal jurisdiction.

The appellants obtained caste certificates certifying them as belonging to the "Manjhi" Scheduled Tribe category and secured government employment as Pharmacists on that basis.

Following a complaint regarding the validity of these certificates, an FIR (Crime No. 07/2025) was registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC.

The appellants filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the FIR and prevent coercive action until the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee verified their status.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions on 28-01-2026.

The appellants subsequently preferred these Writ Appeals challenging the dismissal.

1. Whether a Writ Appeal is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in a petition filed under Article 226 when the relief sought is the quashing of criminal proceedings (akin to Section 482 of Cr.P.C.).

The court 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.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana (2017) and CIT v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas (1965), which establish that the nature of a proceeding (civil vs. criminal) is determined by the nature of the right violated and the relief sought, rather than the constitutional provision invoked.

It further cited the Full Bench decision in Shailendra Kumar v. Divisional Forest Officer (2017) and Pradeep Kori v. State of M.P. (2020), affirming that intra-court appeals are barred in matters involving criminal jurisdiction.

The Court observed that although the appellants characterized their petitions as being under Article 226, the primary relief sought was the quashing of an FIR and protection from arrest.

Under the "Ram Kishan Fauji" principle, if the substance of the petition involves the exercise of criminal jurisdiction—where the conclusion could result in imprisonment or fine—it is classified as a criminal proceeding regardless of the nomenclature.

The Division Bench reasoned that since the Single Judge exercised original criminal jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of an FIR, the bar against intra-court appeals under the Adhiniyam, 2005, applies.

The court further noted that providing a "no coercive action" relief in a writ appeal would essentially grant anticipatory bail in the garb of a civil remedy, which is legally impermissible.

The court answered the core issue in the negative, stating that a litigant cannot bypass the bar on appeals in criminal matters by filing under Article 226 instead of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Both Writ Appeals were dismissed.