A writ appeal against an order declining to quash criminal proceedings is not maintainable when the order is based on the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

T.M. NADAF, J.

1. This intra-court appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioners against the order dated 05.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17007/2021 (GM-RES), whereby the prayer seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.33/2021 of Haryana Police, Panipat, and charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A), 406 and 354-C, read with Section-34 of IPC was declined on merits.

2. The Registry of this Court has raised an objection on the maintainability of this appeal under Section-4 of the Karnataka High Court Act 1961 (‘Act of 1961’ for short), in terms of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya Shree Shree Raghaveshvara Swami Vs. State of Karnataka and Others , 2015 (2) AKR 179, wherein the Division Bench of this Court at para No.11 held as under:

“11. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the petition filed before the learned Single Judge, notwithstanding its nomenclature, as one filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., was actually one filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned single Judge was justified in treating and deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Therefore, this writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 , is not maintainable.”

3. On 08.01.2025, when the matter was listed for compliance of office objections, one of the appellants who appeared in person, submitted that the intra-court appeal under Section-4 of Act of 1961, is maintainable. This Court having considered the submission of the party-in-person, passed the following order:

“The Registry has raised an objection on the maintainability of the writ appeal. It appears the same is because the order passed by the learned Single Judge is also under Section 4 82 of Cr.P.C. The submission of one of the appellants who appears in person is that the subject matter of the challenge in the writ petition is also the FIR registered in Panipat, Haryana, which the Court has not set aside. The petition having been filed even under Articles 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India, also, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge must be read to mean the order has been passed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and not under Section 4 82 of the Cr.P.C and as such, an intra-Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 shall be maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kim Wansoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , 2025 SCC Online SC 17.

Keeping the issue of maintainability open, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.1. Let notice be issued to respondents No.2 and 3 through all modes, returnable on 12.02.2025.”

4. This matter was again listed on 07.04.2025. After hearing Mr.Neeraj Kumar Chadha, party-in-person for all the appellants and Mrs.Savitha Kulkarni, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and