The Jharkhand High Court holds that writ petitions challenging actions arising out of or relating to powers exercised under criminal law (such as police investigation, search, and seizure under BNSS/CrPC) are maintainable only as Criminal Writ Petitions, not Civil Writs; the Court upholds existing Supreme Court and High Court precedent, emphasising the centrality of bench roster allocation—this decision is binding authority for all high courts and subordinate courts within its territorial jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC/5904/2025 of NEXGEN MAHINDRA SALES AND SERVICE CENTRE HAZARIBAGH, THRO ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. RAJESH SINHA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU |
| CNR | JHHC010348662025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Bench | Single Judge (ROSTER: Civil Writ Jurisdiction) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Jharkhand; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court and High Court precedents (Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd., Ram Kishan Fauji, Nagpur Cable Operators’ Association, etc.) |
| Type of Law | Procedural/Jurisdictional—distinction of civil and criminal writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 and bench roster compliance |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that in determining whether a writ petition is “civil” or “criminal,” it is not merely the asserted rights or nature of the relief sought that is determinative, but also the underlying nature of the power and proceeding from which the alleged violation emanates. Where the contested action (such as sealing of premises) arises out of the exercise of powers of investigation under criminal law (here, Section 106 of BNSS), the proper remedy lies in filing a Criminal Writ Petition and not a Civil Writ Petition. The bench/roster allocation by the Chief Justice is binding and any adjudication by a judge outside his assigned roster is void and a nullity. Consequently, writ petitions labelled as civil and decided by a judge not vested with “criminal” roster/jurisdiction are not maintainable. Conversion or transfer of such petitions is not within the powers of a judge acting outside his roster. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners are automobile showroom/service centre operators whose premises were temporarily sealed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Jharkhand, during investigation under Section 106 BNSS, in connection with an FIR involving allegations of fake bank guarantees and corruption. Petitioners were not initially named in the FIR. Petitioners challenged the sealing as ultra vires the ACB’s powers under criminal law, sought unsealing, compensation, and enforcement of their rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A, and moved civil writ petitions. The ACB argued that the actions were an integral part of a criminal investigation, and that only criminal writ petitions would be maintainable against such actions under the roster. Objections on maintainability and jurisdiction were raised and formed the primary issue before the Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and benches in the High Court of Jharkhand; instructive to all court staff. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court; especially on procedural and jurisdictional points. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Jharkhand High Court has clarified, following detailed precedent, that the maintainability of civil versus criminal writ petitions depends not just on the relief sought or rights asserted, but on the nature of the underlying power or action being challenged.
- Challenges to investigatory or police actions (such as search, seizure, and sealing under criminal statutes—CrPC or BNSS) must be brought as Criminal Writ Petitions, and not Civil Writs.
- The decision strictly enforces the principle that judicial roster/allocation as set by the Chief Justice is binding; proceedings conducted by a bench outside its assigned roster are a nullity.
- The Court declined to allow conversion of the present civil writs into criminal writs, citing lack of jurisdiction under the assigned roster in light of Supreme Court authority.
- Orders passed in Civil Writs in such matters (investigatory actions, etc.) are liable to be recalled, and ongoing proceedings must be re-initiated before the proper roster bench.
- Practitioners should carefully assess the nature of the proceeding and consult the current roster before filing writ petitions arising from criminal investigations.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Primary Issue Framed: The Court first determined—before the merits—whether the writ petitions, arising from actions under Section 106 of BNSS (criminal law), were properly maintainable as Civil Writs, owing to the strict division of bench roster at the High Court.
- Binding Precedents: The Court relied on Supreme Court authority (Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd.) and other High Courts, which hold that any judicial order issued by a bench outside its roster allocation is void and without jurisdiction.
- Nature of Proceedings Test: The Court examined not only the rights claimed (property and business under Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A), but also the legal context and source of the challenged action, i.e., exercise of police/ACB powers under criminal procedure/statute.
- Bench Assignment and Roster: Statutory interpretation (including Letters Patent Clauses 10 and 15) and precedents (Vipul Gupta, Ram Kishan Fauji, Nagpur Cable Operators’ Association) guided the Court to conclude that proceedings arising out of or relating to investigation, inquiry, or trial under criminal law are criminal in nature for writ jurisdiction purposes.
- No Power of Conversion: The Court expressly refused to allow conversion of the writ petition from civil to criminal, reasoning that such a step would itself be ultra vires and outside the bench’s assigned powers.
- Ultimate Finding: As the challenged action fell squarely within criminal investigation powers, only a Criminal Writ Petition was maintainable. Accordingly, the civil writ petitions were dismissed as not maintainable, and interim orders were recalled.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The action of the ACB in sealing the premises went beyond its statutory powers under Section 106 of BNSS, which, by analogy with Section 102 CrPC, does not enable seizure or sealing of immovable property.
- Primary rights affected were the right to property under Article 300A and the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
- The writ petitions sought civil relief (mandamus for unsealing, compensation) and hence civil proceedings were maintainable under Article 226; the ACB’s jurisdictional objections were overly technical.
- The nature of the rights infringed and relief claimed should determine whether the proceeding is civil or criminal, not the nature of the underlying statutory power.
- Reliance placed on Supreme Court judgments (Nevada Properties) and other authorities, arguing sealing carried civil consequences.
Respondent (ACB/State)
- The sealing and search operations were part of an ongoing criminal investigation under Section 106, BNSS.
- Only a criminal writ petition is maintainable where the impugned action stems from criminal law, regardless of the rights affected.
- Roster assignments by the Chief Justice are binding; this bench had only civil writ jurisdiction.
- Orders passed outside assigned roster are void; Civil Writs are not maintainable; precedents from Supreme Court and other High Courts (Garden Reach Shipbuilders, Ram Kishan Fauji, Vipul Gupta, Nagpur Cable Operators’) support this.
- The issue of maintainability/jurisdiction must be settled as a preliminary matter before proceeding on merits.
Factual Background
The petitioners are entities operating automobile showrooms and service centres in Jharkhand. The State Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) initiated criminal proceedings (ACB Ranchi P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025) concerning alleged fraud and fake bank guarantees by contractors in connivance with state officials under several sections of the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. Although the petitioners were not initially named, their director was later implicated, served with notices, and the company’s premises were subjected to search and seizure on 28–29 September 2025. ACB sealed the premises temporarily to secure evidence. The petitioners filed Civil Writ Petitions alleging that the sealing was ultra vires, contending no power existed to seal immovable property under Section 106 BNSS, and sought unsealing and compensation.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 106 BNSS (Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023): Interpreted as analogous to Section 102 CrPC; bestows powers on investigative agencies to seize property. Discussion focused on whether this included power to seal immovable property (with reference to Nevada Properties).
- Letters Patent Clauses 10 and 15: Cited regarding the distinction and boundaries between civil and criminal jurisdiction for intra-court appeals and bench assignment.
- Article 226 of the Constitution: The Article itself does not stipulate ‘civil’ or ‘criminal’ jurisdiction; these distinctions arise from judicial administration (roster) and case law interpretations.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded or summarised in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court explicitly addressed the procedural requirement to adjudicate the issue of maintainability and proper forum/roster before addressing the merits.
- It clarified that the issue of maintainability in civil versus criminal writ jurisdiction is to be adjudicated as a threshold issue, not alongside or after the merits.
- The Court refused to permit conversion or transfer of misfiled civil writs to the correct criminal roster, in line with Supreme Court precedent, reinforcing strict jurisdictional discipline.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed