# Smt. Archana Mishra v. State of U.P.& Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 382
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2574 of 2026
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-archana-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54311
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
become stale, and now much water has flown, to be remanded back for scrutiny by the
respondents-authorities, on technical ground.

46. We also decline the request of the learned Standing counsel, to remand the matter and
permit them to examine the reply of the petitioner, on the ground that it is no longer res integra that
when a claim of a right is legal and justified, a relief must followed. We have examined the reply of
the petitioner regarding the subject matter of the show cause, which was the genesis of the present
proceeding and find that the experience certificate cannot be said to be faulted, in view of the
explanation of the petitioner and as such the petitioner deserves the relief to bring quietus to the
proceedings. Undoubtedly, the balancing of equities is not to be confused when avoiding or
postponing the relief, which otherwise one is entitled under law. We also fortified in our view by
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case on Mahendra Prasad Agarwal (supra).

47. In view of the foregoing discussions, the present writ petition stands allowed and the
impugned order dated 30.08.2025 is hereby set aside.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 382
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2574 of 2026

Smt. Archana Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.& Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether a writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India is maintainable for
challenging judicial orders passed by a criminal court, or whether such challenge can only be assailed through
proceedings under Article 227 of Constitution of India or other statutory remedies.

Headnotes
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Challenge to judicial orders - Maintainability
of - Writ of Certiorari - Scope of - The instant criminal writ petition was instituted under Article
226 of Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking quashing of orders dated 12.12.2025 and
21.02.2026 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow in Criminal
Case No. 3894 of 1999 - At the threshold, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of State
regarding the maintainability of writ petition on the ground that judicial orders passed by
criminal courts are not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of Constitution of India in view
of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeta Singh v. State of U.P. - The petitioner,
however, contended that since the impugned orders were allegedly passed without jurisdiction,
a writ of certiorari under Article 226 would lie as per decision given in Radhey Shyam and Ors. v.
Chhabi Nath and Ors - The matter, therefore, came before the High Court for determination of
3 All. Smt. Archana Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
383
maintainability of writ petition and appropriate constitutional remedy available against judicial
orders passed by criminal courts.

Held:. The Court was of the considered view that the instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of impugned orders dated
12.12.2025 and 21.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, is not
maintainable - Accordingly, the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India is dismissed as not
maintainable at the admission stage. [Paras 10, 11] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Neeta Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5761; Radhey Shyam and Ors. v.
Chhabi Nath and Ors.; (2015) 5 SCC 423; T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa; AIR 1954 SC 440 - referred to

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950

List of Keywords
Criminal misc. writ petition; Article 226 of Constitution of India; Quashing of orders; Maintainability; Validity of
Judicial orders passed by criminal courts; Writ of certiorari; Amenable to writ jurisdiction; Liberty to file fresh
petition under Article 227; Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 2574 of 2026

From the Judgment and Orders dated 12.12.2025 and 21.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Chief Judicial
Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow in Criminal Case No.3894 of 1999.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Petitioner(s):
Sanjeev Kumar Mishra

Adv. for the Respondent(s):
G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjeev
Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mohd. Asif Khan, the learned AGA-I
for the State.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has sought quashing of orders dated 12.12.2025 and 21.02.2026 passed by the learned
Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow in Criminal Case No.3894 of 1999 (State v.
Sahdev Singh and Ors.).

3. The learned AGA-I has raised a preliminary objection that in view of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.;
2024 SCC OnLine SC 5761, a judicial order passed by criminal courts cannot be challenged by
filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such an order can only be
challenged by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Senior Advocate has disputed this objection raised by the
learned AGA-I and he has submitted that Neeta Singh (Supra) has been decided following the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and Ors. v. Chhabi Nath
and Ors.; (2015) 5 SCC 423 whereas in para-9 of the judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam
(Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-

 "Certiorari' may lie and is generally granted when a court has acted without or in excess
of its jurisdiction. The want of jurisdiction may arise from the nature of the subject-matter of the
proceeding or from the absence of some preliminary proceeding or the court itself may not be
legally constituted or suffer from certain disability by reason of extraneous circumstances, vide
Halsbury, 2 Edn., Vol IX, p. 880. When the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the existence of
some collateral fact, it is well settled that the court cannot by a wrong decision of the fact give it
jurisdiction which it would not otherwise possess, vide Income Tax Special Purposes V Fuller15, R.
Bunbury Commissioners"

5. Shri Tripathi has submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Radhey Shyam (Supra) as the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction, a
writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari would lie.

6. The aforesaid passage relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been
taken from a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa;
AIR 1954 SC 440, which has been quoted in para-10 of the judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam
(Supra). However, this has not been followed or approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Radhey Shyam (Supra).

7. After referring to the aforesaid judgment in the case of T.C. Basappa (Supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to numerous other subsequent judgments and concluded that the
judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is distinct from
the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. In Neeta Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

 "3. We have no doubt in our mind about the contours of jurisdiction of a high
court when a challenge is presented asserting that the impugned FIR ought to be quashed
on the settled parameters. However, sight cannot be lost of the settled legal position that it
is entirely within the discretion of a high court whether to interfere or not when other
remedies are available. If during the pendency of a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution before a high court where an FIR is challenged the investigation is completed
and charge-sheet filed, in pursuance whereof the competent criminal court takes
cognizance of the offence, the court would be disabled in proceeding with the writ petition
owing to a judicial order having intervened. We can profitably refer to the decision of the
bench of three Judges of this Court made on a reference in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath.
While disapproving the view expressed in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, it was held
that judicial orders of the civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article
3 All. Smt. Archana Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
385
226 of the Constitution and that jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction
under Article 226. We may also note from such decision that upon considering decisions of
high authority, a principle of law was laid down that challenge to judicial orders could lie
by way of an appeal or a revision or under Article 227 of the Constitution and not by way
of a writ under Articles 226 and 32.

 4. The underlying reason why judicial orders are not amenable to challenge in a
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seems to be that such orders cannot be
legitimately claimed to have been passed by the presiding officer of a court in breach or
violation of a fundamental right, any right conferred by the Constitution or a statutorily
conferred right, which could be corrected by issuance of a writ of certiorari in exercise of
high prerogative writ jurisdiction of the high courts. After all, should any right of a person
be infringed as a consequence of a judicial order, the laws provide for the fora where such
order is amenable to challenge and it is such fora, which ought to be approached for
redress of one's grievance. This position flows from Constitution Bench decisions of this
Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra and Rupa Ashok Hurra v.
Ashok Hurra, as well as the decision of a bench of three Judges in Sadhana Lodh v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd.

 5. Although Radhey Shyam (supra) dealt with judicial orders passed by civil
courts, there cannot be a different standard for judicial orders passed by criminal courts.
If a judicial order passed by a civil court cannot be challenged in a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution, a fortiori, a judicial order passed by a criminal court
cannot also be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226."

9. The legal position has been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there is
no doubt that after the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Neeta Singh (Supra), the High Courts stand disabled from entertaining a writ petition
seeking issuance of writ of certiorari and thereby examining the validity of a judicial order
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the instant Writ Petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari
for quashing of the impugned orders dated 12.12.2025 and 21.02.2026 passed by the
learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, is not maintainable.

11. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is dismissed as not maintainable at the admission stage.

12. The petitioner shall have liberty to file a fresh petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.

13. Let the certified copies filed along with the Writ Petition be returned to the learned
counsel for the petitioner after retaining their photocopies on record
----------
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 3 ILRA 386
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 1983

Gopi Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether in absence of pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds, conviction of the surviving
appellant under S. 307 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable and whether liability can
be fastened for the individual act of co-accused in firing upon the police party. (Paras 29,30,42)

Headnotes
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Criminal law - burden of proof - prosecution must prove case beyond
reasonable doubt - direct evidence supported by medical evidence renders testimony reliable
and trustworthy. (Paras 24,27)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Appreciation of evidence - consistent ocular testimony of injured
witness and eye-witness - absence of major contradictions lends credibility - corroboration by
medical evidence strengthens prosecution case. (Paras 26,27)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 34 - principle of constructive liability - requires existence of
common intention and participation - does not create distinct offence. (Paras 32,35)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Common intention - implies pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of
minds - may develop on the spot but must be inferred from conduct and surrounding
circumstances - Distinction between similar intention and common intention - mere
simultaneous acts without prior concert insufficient to attract S. 34 IPC. (Paras 32,33,36,40)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sudden provocation - absence of prior meeting of minds -
spontaneous reaction does not establish common intention for graver offence - Individual
liability - act of firing by one accused cannot be attributed to others in absence of shared
intention - vicarious liability not attracted. (Paras 42,43, 45)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 323 - participation in causing simple injuries by throwing bricks and
stones proved - conviction sustainable - Sentencing - long lapse of time and advanced age of
accused - sentence reduced to period already undergone. (Para 44, 46) (E-7)
Held:

Case Law Cited
Virendra Singh v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 407; Vasant v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
337; Mahboob Shah v. Emperor, 721 IA 148 (PC): AIR 1945 PC 118; Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana,
1999 Cr LJ 1634 (SC); Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216: 1955 Cr LJ 572; State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Rohan Singh, 1996 Cr LJ 2884 (SC); Krishnamurthy alias Gunodu and Ors. vs. State of
Karnataka (2022) 7 SCC 5211.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Arms Act, 1959;
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023