Geeta Devi Vs The State of Bihar through the… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2025)

Geeta Devi Vs The State of Bihar through the… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition not entertained under Article 226; petitioner permitted to convert the criminal writ petition into a criminal revision petition within a week, with the office directed to extend co-operation towards conversion and the converted petition to be listed before the appropriate Bench once the petitioner takes step for conversion.

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Aurangabad could be challenged by the petitioner through a criminal writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. +1 more

Court's answer

Judicial orders of the Civil Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeta Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2024 SCC OnLine SC 5761); accordingly the writ challenge to the cognizance order cannot proceed under Article 226.

Ratio / Principle

Permission is accorded to learned counsel for the petitioner to convert the present criminal writ petition into a criminal revision petition, within a week.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PATNA HIGH COURT (Arun Kumar Jha, J), Oral Order dated 11-12-2025 in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1991 of 2025 — Geeta Devi v. The State of Bihar and others (arising out of PS Case No.224 of 2024, Thana Mali, District Aurangabad). The petitioner had challenged, through a criminal writ petition, the cognizance order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Aurangabad. Relying on Neeta Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5761 (Supreme Court), the Court held that judicial orders of the Civil Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Faced with this, learned counsel sought and was accorded permission to convert the criminal writ petition into a criminal revision petition within a week; the office was directed to extend all co-operation towards the conversion, and the converted petition is to be listed before the appropriate Bench as soon as the petitioner takes step for conversion.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1991 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-224 Year-2024 Thana- MALI District- Aurangabad

======================================================

Geeta Devi W/o- Nagendra Ram Resident of Village-Khambha kolh Manjhaulii PS- Mali, Dist- Aurangabad

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna Bihar

The Director General of Police, DGP, Govt. of Bihar, Patna Bihar

The Superintendent of Police, S.P Dist- Aurangabad Bihar

The SHO Cum Officer In Charge, Mali, Aurangabad Bihar

Bipul Singh @ Bipul Kumar Singh S/o- Late Vnod Singh Village- Khambha Kolh, Manjhauli Ps- Mali Dist- Aurangabad

Tipu Kumar Singh S/o- Shakti Singh Village- Khambha Kolh, Manjhauli PsMali Dist- Aurangabad

... ... Respondent/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Alka Verma, Advocate Ms. Akanksha Kumari, Advocate Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.C.22 Mr. Vikramadit, AC to SC-22 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

2 11-12-2025 The petitioner has challenged the cognizance order

dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Aurangabad.

2. The judicial orders of the Civil Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5761 .

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1991 of 2025(2) dt.11-12-2025 2/2

3 . Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to convert the instant criminal writ petition into a criminal revision petition.

4 . Permission is accorded.

5 . Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to convert the present criminal writ petition into criminal revision petition, within a week.

6 . The office is directed to extend all co-operation to the learned counsel for the petitioner towards conversion.

7 . As soon as the petitioner takes step for conversion of the petition, the converted petition be listed before the appropriate Bench.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

Ashish/-

U