Substance over nomenclature in writ practice: a quashing petition with disputed facts was not maintainable in writ appeal.

Appellate maintainability depends on the substance of the relief sought, not the label used in the petition. Where the writ petition, though styled under Articles 226 and 227, was in substance a request to quash an FIR and criminal investigation, it was treated as falling within Section 482 CrPC. The Court further noted that the controversy involved seriously disputed facts and documents, which made Article 226 relief inappropriate and did not justify factual reappraisal under Article 227. On that basis, the writ appeal was held not maintainable and the Single Judge's order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 was maintainable when the writ petition, though styled under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, was in substance a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; and whether the matter involved such disputed facts as to make Article 226 relief inappropriate.

Analysis: The Court held that the substance of the petition, and the relief sought, was a request to quash the FIR and the criminal investigation, a subject properly falling within Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The nomenclature adopted by the petitioner was not decisive. The Court also noted that the controversy rested on seriously disputed facts and disputed documents, which could not be resolved in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such a situation, the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 was not attracted in aid of factual reappraisal, and the case did not justify treating the petition as one maintainable in writ jurisdiction for appellate purposes.

Conclusion: The writ petition was rightly treated as one under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the writ appeal was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed at the threshold on maintainability, and the order of the learned Single Judge was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: For determining appellate maintainability, the substance of the relief sought prevails over the nomenclature of the petition, and disputed questions of fact do not justify conversion of a quashing petition into a writ appeal under Article 226.

---