The High Court of Jharkhand clarifies that writ petitions arising from or relating to investigative actions under criminal statutes, such as search and seizure or sealing of property, are maintainable only as Criminal Writ Petitions. The judgment affirms that Chief Justice’s roster allocation is binding, and any adjudication by a Bench acting beyond its assigned jurisdiction is void and a nullity. This precedent must be followed strictly by subordinate courts and litigants.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC/5903/2025 of M/S NEXGEN SOLUTIONS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. RAJESH SINHA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU |
| CNR | JHHC010354422025 |
| 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 Bench (Civil Writ Jurisdiction as per roster) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Jharkhand |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court & High Court precedents on jurisdiction and roster allocation |
| Type of Law | Procedural—Jurisdiction and maintainability in writ proceedings; interpretation of Criminal and Civil Writ Jurisdictions |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that the maintainability of a writ petition as civil or criminal is not determined solely by the nature of rights infringed or relief sought, but crucially also by the statutory origin and nature of the authority or process impugned. Where the challenge arises from investigative powers exercised under criminal law (here, Section 106 of BNSS), the proceeding is “criminal” regardless of any asserted civil consequences. Accordingly, only a Criminal Writ Petition would be maintainable. The Court further held that under settled Supreme Court precedent, roster allocation by the Chief Justice is final and binding: any order or adjudication by a bench acting outside its allocated jurisdiction is a nullity and void ab initio. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court analyzed the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings, noting that both the rights allegedly infringed and the source and context of the impugned action must be considered. It reiterated Supreme Court authority that issues relating to investigations or actions under criminal statutes are criminal in nature, regardless of any ‘civil consequences’ or the reliefs sought. The Court emphasized the binding nature of roster allocation by the Chief Justice (Garden Reach Shipbuilders), holding that adjudication without jurisdiction is void and a nullity. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioners’ premises (showrooms/workshops) were sealed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau during investigation into an FIR involving alleged offences under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, including forged bank guarantees, implicating officials and contractors. The petitioners alleged their civil/business rights and property rights (Articles 19(1)(g) & 300A) were infringed, challenging the sealing under Section 106 BNSS as ultra vires. Respondents asserted the sealing was to prevent evidence tampering and was within investigative power. The principal question argued was whether such challenge lay in Civil or Criminal Writ Jurisdiction. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts of Jharkhand and Benches of the Jharkhand High Court (for jurisdictional/roster allocation and maintainability of writ petitions) |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India (especially on the interplay of criminal investigative action and civil rights claims in writ jurisdiction and adherence to roster allocation) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clarifies that writ petitions challenging investigative actions under criminal law (such as search, seizure, or sealing under Section 106 BNSS/Section 102 CrPC) must be filed as Criminal Writ Petitions, regardless of whether civil or business rights are implicated.
- It confirms that both the nature of right infringed and the statutory context/nature of the impugned action must be considered in determining whether proceedings are ‘civil’ or ‘criminal’.
- Any order passed by a bench exercising jurisdiction outside its allocated roster is a nullity — i.e., completely void — as per Supreme Court authority.
- The Court declined to permit conversion of civil writ to criminal writ petition, reaffirming the strict limits imposed by roster allocation.
- Lawyers must be vigilant regarding not just the rights asserted, but also the source and nature of the challenged process, when choosing the type of writ petition and bench.
- The decision applies the principle that proceedings relating to investigation, inquiry, or trial under criminal statutes are “criminal proceedings” for writ jurisdictional purposes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first addressed the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent-ACB that only a Criminal Writ Petition was maintainable, as the challenge pertained to action under criminal law (Section 106 BNSS, relating to search/seizure/sealing during investigation).
- The Petitioners argued that as their right to carry on business (Article 19(1)(g)) and right to property (Article 300A) were infringed, the proceeding was civil in nature.
- The Court conducted a detailed doctrinal analysis of Supreme Court and High Court precedents, particularly:
- Garden Reach Shipbuilders (SC): Any adjudication or order by a bench acting outside its roster allocation is void and a nullity; roster allocation by the Chief Justice is final and binding.
- Ram Kishan Fauji (SC): Maintainability of intra-court appeal depends on the nature of the proceeding (civil/criminal), which is determined by both the subject-matter and the statutory source/context of power exercised.
- Vipul Gupta (Delhi HC), Nagpur Cable Operators (Bombay HC): Where the relief sought relates to the domain of criminal law (such as interference in investigation), the jurisdiction is “criminal,” regardless of civil rights consequences.
- Applying these principles, the Court held that proceedings challenging investigative actions under criminal statutes must be filed as Criminal Writ Petitions, not Civil Writs.
- Interim orders earlier passed by the Court sitting as a Civil Writ Bench were recalled as void, following Garden Reach Shipbuilders.
- The Court declined to allow the conversion of civil writs to criminal writs at this stage, as doing so would itself be outside its roster jurisdiction.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The Anti-Corruption Bureau exceeded its jurisdiction by sealing immovable property under Section 106 BNSS, as there is no provision for sealing immovable property within criminal law.
- The right to carry on business and right to property under Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution were infringed.
- Cited Nevada Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra to support that police action under Section 102 CrPC/106 BNSS does not extend to sealing immovable property.
- Raised that issue of maintainability is hyper-technical and should not defeat the substantive rights claimed.
- Requested the Court to decide simultaneously both the issue of maintainability and the jurisdiction of the ACB in sealing property.
- Cited M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, S.R.P. Oil Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, and Ram Kishan Fauji to argue that civil consequences and the nature of rights/reliefs determine the nature of the proceeding.
- Alternatively, argued that the Court should permit adjudication of the merits or conversion of the writs.
Respondent (ACB/State)
- The action challenged was directly under criminal law (Section 106 BNSS), thus only Criminal Writ Jurisdiction is maintainable.
- The present Bench had no roster allocation for Criminal Writs; any adjudication here would be void.
- Cited Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd., Trivandrum Apollo Towers v. Union of India, Vipul Gupta v. State, Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana, and Nagpur Cable Operators’ Association to support preliminary objection on maintainability.
- Contended that reliefs sought directly relate to investigative authority under a criminal statute, making the proceedings criminal regardless of civil dimensions.
- Asserted that issue of maintainability must be decided first and cannot be merged with merits.
- Emphasized that roster allocation governs both jurisdiction to hear and the maintainability of intra-court appeals.
Factual Background
Petitioners are companies operating automobile showrooms/workshops in Jharkhand. During investigation in ACB Ranchi P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025 (alleged offences under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act), the premises of the petitioners were searched and later sealed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The petitioners, although not named in the initial FIR, had directors who became subjects of the investigation and arrest in related cases. The petitioners challenged the sealing of their premises (undertaken to prevent alleged evidence tampering, including deletion of digital data) as being beyond criminal law powers, violating Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 106 of BNSS, 2023: Relates to the power of police to seize property during investigation, analogous to Section 102 of CrPC. The petitioners challenged that this provision does not authorize seizure or sealing of immovable property.
- Article 226 of the Constitution: High Court’s writ power, not classified in the Constitution as civil or criminal, but nature of proceeding determined by context and statutory basis of impugned action.
- Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300A of the Constitution: Invoked by petitioners as rights allegedly infringed by the sealing orders.
- Clauses 10 and 15 of the Letters Patent: Distinguish between appeals maintainable in civil and criminal matters; used by the Court to interpret the procedural framework and jurisdictional bifurcation.
- The Court examined whether the proceedings were of a “criminal” character by the standard of earlier Supreme Court and High Court judgments.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court underscored that any conversion of writ petitions or orders beyond the jurisdiction allocated by the Chief Justice’s roster would itself be void and hence refused to permit conversion from civil to criminal writ jurisdiction.
- The judgment operates as a procedural warning: not only must the relief sought be supported in law, but the forum and classification of the petition must match the statutory context of the challenged action.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision stringently follows existing Supreme Court and High Court precedents on the binding nature of roster allocation and the distinction between criminal and civil writ jurisdiction.