RAM KISHAN FAUJI v. STATE OF HARYANA & Ors.

Judgment

4 S.C.R. 553 RAM KISHAN FAUJI v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4288of2017) MARCH 21, 2017 A ·B [DIPAK MISRA, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] Letters Patent: Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) - Writ petition C u/Art. 226 of the Constitution - Seeking quashing of recommendation of Lokayukta for registration of FIR and investigation - Single Judge of High Court allowed the writ petition quashing the recommendation - Letters Patent Appeal - Allowed - Appeal challenging maintainability of the LPA - Held: Till a D competent legislature takes away the power of the Letters Patent, the same can be exercised by the High Court under Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent to the High Court - However, exercising such jurisdiction, it is imperative to see what is the nature of jurisdiction that has actually been provided in the Letters Patent· - If the proceedings, nature and relief sought pertain to anything connected E with criminal jurisdiction, LPA would not lie, as the same is not provided in Cl. I 0 of Letters Patent - Conception of 'criminal jurisdiction' as used in Cl. 10 encompasses in its gamut the inception and the consequence - In the present case, the nature of the proceedings was criminal and not civil - Therefore, the LPA was not maintainable - Letters Patent (as applicable to erstwhile Punjab & Lahore High Courts) - Cl. 10. F Court Proceedings : Nature/character of court proceedings - Determination of - Held: Character of the proceedings does not depend upon the nature G of the tribunal which is invested with the authority to grant relief. but upon the nature of the right violated and the appropriate relief which may be claimed. Civil proceedings and criminal proceedings - Distinction between - Discussed. 553 H 554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Till a competent legislature takes away the power of the Letters Patent, the same can be exercised by the High Court. However, while exercising the power under the Letters Patent, it is imperative to see what is the nature of jurisdiction that has actually been provided in the Letters Patent. The exercise of jurisdiction has to be within the ambit and scope of the authority enshrined in the provision meant for intra-court appeal. [Para 28) [511-B] Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra and others (2005) 2 SCC 591 : [2005] 1 SCR 223 - followed. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay & another v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas and others [1966) 1 SCR 190; Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat and others (2015) 9 SCC 1 : [2015] 6 SCR 504 - relied on. 4, An appeal shall lie from the judgment of a Single Judge to a Division Bench of the High Court if it is so permitted within the ambit and sweep of the Letters Patent. The power conferred . on the High Court by the Letters Pa_tent can be abolished or curtailed by the competent legislature by bringing appropriate legislation. A writ petition which assails the order of a civil court in .. the High Court has to be understood, in all circumstances, to be a challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution and determination by the High Court under the said Article and, hence, no intra-court appeal is entertainable. The ~~nability of intra-court appeal will depend upon the Bench 3dju11icating the /is as to how it understands and appreciates the ordl-r passed by the Single Judge. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for the sarite. [Para 46] (579-E-H) B C D E F Hari Vishnu Karnath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and others AIR 1955 SC 233 : [1955] SCR 1104 - held inapplicable. G T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa: AIR 1954 SC 440: [1955] SCR 250 - referred to.

#3. A civil proceeding is one in which a person seeks to H enforce by approprfate relief the alleged infringement of his civil RAM KISHAN FAUJI v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 555 rights against another person or the State, and which, if the claim A is proved, would result in the declaration, express or implied, of the right claimed and relief such as payment of debt, damages, compensation, delivery of specific property, enforcement of personal rights, determination of status, etc. A criminal proceeding is ordinarily one which, if carried to its conclusion, may result in B imposition of (i) sentence, and (ii) it can take within its ambit the larger interest of the State, orders to prevent apprehended breach of peace and orders to bind down persons who are a danger to the maintenance of peace and order. The character of the proceeding does not depend upon the nature of the tribunal which is invested with the authority to grant relief but upon the nature C of the right violated and the appropriate relief which may be claimed. [Paras 33 and 34] (572-E-H; 573-A] Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma AIR 1965 SC 1595 : (1965] SCR 366; Umaji Keshao Meshram & others v. Radhikabai & another 1986 (Supp.) SCC 401 : (1986] SCR 731; Kishorilal v. Sales Officer, District Land Development Bank (2006) 7 SCC 496 : [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 274; State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Visan Marduk Shiv Charan Lal (2008) 15 SCC 233 : (2008] 17 SCR 156; Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar and others v. Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shaha and others 1993 Supp (1) SCC 11; Ramesh Chandra Sank/a Etc. v. Vikram Cement Etc. (2008) 14 SCC 58: [2008] 10 SCR 243; Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others (2015) 5 SCC 423 : [2015] 3 SCR 197; Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 : (2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 290; Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1967 SC 1 : (1966] SCR 744; Lokmat Newspapers (P) (1999] 3 Ltd. v. Shankarprasad (1999) 6 SCC 275: SCR 907 - referred to.

#4. Where an appeal is not excluded against the judgment of the High Court of a Single Judge, an appeal would lie to the Division Bench and if the appropriate Legislature has expressly or by necessary implication not taken away a right of appeal, the appeal shall lie from the Single Judge under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent to the High Court. [Para 24] (569-C-D] D E F G H 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. A South Asia Industries Private Ltd v. S.B. Sarup Singh and others (1965) 2 SCR 756 - relied on.

#5. If the proceeding, nature and relief sought pertain to anything connected with criminal jurisdiction, intra-court appeal would not lie, as the same is not provided in Clause 10 of the B Letters Patent. If an appeal in certain jurisdictions is not provided for, it cannot be conceived of. The conception of 'criminal jurisdiction' as used in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is not to be construed in the narrow sense. It encompasses in its gamut the inception and the consequence. It is the field in respect of which the jurisdiction is exercised, is relevant. The contention c that solely because a writ petition is filed to quash an investigation, it would have room for intra-court appeal and if a petition is filed under inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, there would be no space for an intra-court appeal, would create an anomalous, unacceptable and inconceivable situation. The provision D contained in the Letters Patent does not allow or permit such an interpretation. It confers jurisdiction as regards the subject of controversy or nature of proceeding and that subject is exercise of jurisdiction in criminal matters. It has nothing to do whether the order has been passed in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. [Paras 49 and 61] [580-H; 581-A; 587- G-H; 588-A-C] E