Quashing of FIR Invokes Criminal Jurisdiction, Bars Intra-Court Appeal Under Article 226: Karnataka HC Rejects Writ Appeal Against FIR Quash Order

“It Is the Nature of Jurisdiction, Not the Label of Petition, That Determines Appealability”: Karnataka High Court comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice T.M. Nadaf delivered a significant ruling on the procedural aspect of writ appeals. The Court dismissed Writ Appeal filed by Neeraj Kumar Chadha and others, holding that intra-court appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 are not maintainable against Single Judge orders exercising criminal jurisdiction, even if the writ petition is formally styled under Article 226.

The petitioners had sought to quash an FIR (Crime No. 33/2021) filed by the Panipat Police, Haryana, invoking Sections 498A, 406, 354C r/w 34 IPC, relating to matrimonial disputes and allegations of harassment and criminal intimidation. A second FIR (Crime No. 50/2021) had also been registered in Karnataka due to altercations during a police action.

While the Single Judge quashed the Karnataka FIR, the plea to quash the Haryana FIR was rejected. The petitioners filed a writ appeal against this part of the order, asserting that the proceedings were under Article 226, thereby invoking the Court’s civil appellate jurisdiction.

“The Power Exercised Was Under Section 482 CrPC, Not Article 226”: Division Bench Sustains Registry's Objection

Rejecting the maintainability of the appeal, the Division Bench held that it is the substance of jurisdiction invoked — and not the nomenclature of the petition — that determines appealability. The Court observed:

“Though the petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227, read with Section 482 CrPC, the prayer sought was essentially to quash criminal proceedings, and hence the learned Single Judge exercised criminal jurisdiction.”

Citing the precedent in Sreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya v. State of Karnataka and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana, the Bench emphasized:

“What matters is the nature of the proceeding, and that is the litmus test. The nomenclature cannot alter the fundamental nature of the jurisdiction exercised.”

The judgment reinforces the position that appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act lie only from decisions rendered in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction — not criminal jurisdiction.

Article 226(2) and Territorial Jurisdiction Do Not Transform Criminal Jurisdiction Into Civil

The appellants argued that since a portion of the cause of action occurred in Karnataka, the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226(2). They contended that this made the writ petition civil in nature, and thus appealable. The Court rejected this contention:

“Invoking Article 226(2) to establish territorial jurisdiction does not change the nature of the jurisdiction exercised. The substance of the relief — quashing an FIR — clearly pertains to criminal jurisdiction.”

The Division Bench affirmed that territorial cause alone does not elevate a criminal proceeding to civil for the purposes of appeal maintainability.

Roster Bench and 2012 Circular: Registry Acted Correctly

The Court further noted that the petition had been rightly listed before the criminal roster bench under a 2012 circular, which directed all petitions for quashing FIRs under Article 226/227 r/w Section 482 CrPC to be treated as criminal matters.

“The Registry was correct in raising an objection on the basis of the Sreemad Jagadguru judgment and the roster prescribed for petitions invoking Section 482.”

Thus, the appellate court held that the Single Judge's decision declining to quash the Panipat FIR was an exercise of criminal jurisdiction and not appealable under intra-court civil appellate provisions.

“Disputed Facts Require Trial, Not Quashing”: Observations of the Single Judge Upheld

In the original judgment dated September 5, 2024, the Single Judge had declined to quash the Panipat FIR, citing:

“Serious allegations of harassment, dowry demands, and sexual misconduct have been made. These are not mere omnibus statements. The matter deserves trial and cannot be short-circuited at this stage.”

The Division Bench, while refraining from re-examining the merits, cited this reasoning to reinforce that the petition sought relief in the realm of criminal justice, making the appeal non-maintainable.

Concluding its judgment, the Division Bench ordered: “The writ appeal filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, declining to quash FIR No.33/2021 registered by Panipat Police, is dismissed as not maintainable under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.”

This judgment reiterates that Section 482 CrPC is not appealable intra-court, even when invoked under Article 226. It further strengthens procedural clarity on the demarcation between civil and criminal jurisdiction within High Court appellate structures.

Date of Decision: May 29, 2025