Criminal Writ Petitions Restored: Rajasthan HC Full Bench

Writ Petitions in Criminal Matters Must Be Registered as Criminal Writ Petitions: Rajasthan High Court Full Bench

Published: 3 November 2026 · NyayVidhan

A three-judge Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that writ petitions under Article 226 arising out of criminal matters must be registered as 'Criminal Writ Petitions' under Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952. It held per incuriam, to that extent, a Division Bench direction of 7 July 2026 in Jiya that had barred the label, and ordered pending matters to be re-registered within two weeks. The ruling operates prospectively (paras 43-49).

Key holdings

Rule 315(1)(h) treats a writ in a criminal matter like bail and transfer applications: it is registered and numbered as a criminal miscellaneous case (paras 5-6, 18-19).

The 'Criminal Writ Petition' label creates no new constitutional jurisdiction, but it decides the roster Bench and so is not purely clerical (paras 21, 25, 45).

The Jiya direction of 7 July 2026, made without considering Rule 315(1)(h), is per incuriam to the extent that it barred criminal-side registration (paras 37, 44-47).

The ruling is prospective: concluded matters stay undisturbed, while pending criminal-matter writs are to be re-registered within two weeks (paras 48.1, 48.3, 49).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, framed under the 1949 Ordinance read with Article 225 of the Constitution, requires an application for a writ under Article 226 'in a criminal matter' to be registered and numbered as a criminal miscellaneous case (paras 4-6). On 7 July 2026 a Division Bench, in Jiya & Others v. Government of Rajasthan, directed the Registry not to register any case as a 'Criminal Writ Petition', observing that the Constitution has no such concept, and converted the petition before it into a civil writ petition (para 2). Hearing a civil writ petition, Anand Sharma J. found that direction in conflict with Rule 315(1)(h) and referred five questions to a Full Bench (para 1).

Court's Findings

The Full Bench read Rule 315(1) as placing a writ in a criminal matter in the same class as applications for bail, cancellation of bail and transfer, all registered as criminal miscellaneous cases; the words 'shall be registered' are mandatory in form (paras 6, 18-19). Under Rule 123(1) the criminal-side rules in Part III prevail over inconsistent rules, and the classification has real consequences: Rule 134(i) excludes a special appeal against a Single Judge's judgment in criminal jurisdiction, and the roster is made under Rule 54 (paras 8-11). The Constitution itself separates civil and criminal proceedings in Articles 133 and 134, a distinction explained in Ram Kishan Fauji (paras 12-15). The label creates no separate constitutional jurisdiction, but where it decides the roster Bench it is not a purely clerical matter (paras 21, 25, 34). An operative rule cannot be ignored by a judicial direction without a lawful finding on its scope or validity (paras 27-30). Because Jiya did not consider Rule 315(1)(h), its direction was per incuriam to that extent (paras 37, 44-47).

Legal Principle

A writ petition under Article 226 arising out of a criminal matter is maintainable and must be registered and processed on the criminal side under Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952. A judicial direction that disregards an operative rule of the High Court is per incuriam to that extent (paras 43-47).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

The immediate effect is on filing and listing in the High Court. A writ petition that arises out of criminal proceedings and seeks relief affecting their initiation, investigation, continuation or consequences should be registered as a Criminal Writ Petition for the criminal roster Bench, and criminal-matter writs registered under another name are to be re-registered within two weeks (paras 21, 48.2-48.4). The label is not cosmetic: Rule 134(i) excludes a special appeal against a Single Judge's judgment given in criminal jurisdiction (para 11). The Full Bench followed Ram Kishan Fauji while noting that the Supreme Court, in Sanjay Prasad v. Madhusudan Dwivedi, has referred its correctness to a Larger Bench; until that Bench decides, it binds (paras 14-15).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Jiya & Others v. The Government of Rajasthan & Others D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.128/2018 (order dated 07.07.2026)
Overruled Discussed at ¶ 1-2, 9, 12, 24, 29, 31-33, 35, 37, 39, 44-47
Division Bench order of 07.07.2026 directing the Registry not to register any case as a 'Criminal Writ Petition'. The Full Bench held that, to the extent it prohibits criminal-side registration of writ petitions arising out of criminal matters, the direction is per incuriam because it did not consider Rule 315(1)(h), and cannot be approved.
Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana (2017) 5 SCC 533
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 13-15, 44
Explains the difference between civil and criminal proceedings: the character of a proceeding depends on the nature of the right violated and the relief claimed. The Full Bench noted that its correctness has been referred to a Larger Bench but held that it binds until then.
Sanjay Prasad v. Madhusudan Dwivedi and Ors. (2026) INSC 1128 2026 INSC 1128
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 14-15
Noted as the decision that doubted Ram Kishan Fauji on intra-court appeals and referred it to a Larger Bench; the terms of reference are quoted.

View all precedents (9)

Pay 10 Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India W.P.(c) 1592/2026 (Delhi High Court)
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 16
The nature of the dispute, the genesis of the proceedings and the relief sought decide whether a petition belongs to the civil or criminal side; nomenclature alone does not determine constitutional jurisdiction.
M/s Nagpur Cable Operators' Association v. Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and Anr. 1995 SCC OnLine Bom 241
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 17, 44
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court: a writ petition arising out of or relating to a proceeding that may end in a sentence should be treated and styled as a 'criminal writ petition'; its directions to the Registry for styling and registering civil and criminal writ petitions are quoted.
Ambalal Parihar v. State of Rajasthan Criminal Appeal No. 3233/2023; 2023 INSC 943 2023 INSC 943
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 23
A petition arising from criminal proceedings could not be treated as a civil writ petition merely to secure a hearing before a Bench not assigned criminal-writ matters; it was to be placed before the appropriate roster Bench.
N. Prakash v. Manoj Kumar and Ors. W.A. No. 1803/2024 (Kerala High Court, decided 30.01.2025)
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 24, 44
Examined the substance of the dispute and the consequences of the proceedings when deciding whether a petition was criminal or civil.
State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) 1 SCC 1
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 27-28
The Chief Justice is the master of the roster; the Full Bench added that this supports proper allocation of cases but does not mean a roster direction repeals a procedural rule.
State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (1991) 4 SCC 139
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 37, 46
A decision rendered in ignorance of a statute or a rule having the force of law, or of binding authority, may be per incuriam; applied to hold the Jiya direction per incuriam.