Sanjay Agrawal, J.

1. While hearing the Writ Appeal No.97/2008, the Division Bench of this Court has opined vide order dated 22.02.2011 that whether the learned Single Judge has examined the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in considering whether the criminal proceedings could be quashed or not or whether the said writ petition was to be treated as one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only. It was thus opined that the matter requires to be considered on the question whether Writ Appeal against the order impugned dated 19.03.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1467/2008 would be maintainable or not. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench and after due consideration, the matter was thus placed before the Full Bench, as per the direction issued on 09.03.2011 for consideration of the above referred question.

2. Before considering the question referred to the Full Bench, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (for brevity 'the Act'), which reads as under:

“2. Appeal to Division Bench of the High Court from a judgment or order of one judge of the High Court made in exercise of original jurisdiction.-(1) An appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed by one judge of the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division Bench comprising of two judges of the same High Court.

Provided that no such appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

3. The issue raised before us is pertaining to the proviso quoted above in order to ascertain whether the order impugned as passed by the learned Single Judge on 19.03.2008 in W.P.(C) No.1467/2008 is amenable to intra-court appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the said Act or not. The order impugned questioned in writ appeal is not the interlocutory order, therefore, we have to examine whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution was invoked by the learned Single Judge while passing the order impugned dated 19.03.2008.

4. The facts placed before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition are, therefore, necessary to examine in order to ascertain the facts whether it was exercised the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. The undisputed facts involved in the said writ petition are that the petitioner Mohd. Arshad Khan, while exercising the writ jurisdiction enumerated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashment of the Criminal Case No. 833/2006 “Prakash Choubey vs. Mohd. Arshad Khan”, which was pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. It was alleged for its quashment that the said criminal proceeding was initiated against him on the basis of the complaint filed by one Prakash Choubey, the respondent No.5 in the said writ petition, on the allegation that the said petitioner (Mohd. Arshad Khan) while making a false and defamatory allegations against him, had earlier instituted a petition, being W.P. No. 3333/2003, by submitting, inter alia therein, that a Criminal Case under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C.') is pending against him in relation to a dacoity of the year 1987. The initiation of the said writ petition as such, based upon false allegation, has lowered down his position and image in the society and has been made intentionally in order to tarnish his image, therefore, he has been constrained to lodge the said complaint. Based upon which, the alleged criminal case was registered while framing charge under Section 501 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner Mohd. Arshad Khan.

6. The aforesaid allegation as alleged before the learned Magistrate was countered by the