A.K. Sikri, J.

1. C.S. Agarwal, the appellant in LPA No. 819 of 2010, had filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 57 of 2010 invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking appropriate writ for quashing the FIR No. 264/2009 dated 23.12.2009 lodged against him and others by the Economic Offences Wing, Crime and Railways, Delhi under Sections 420/406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The said writ petition has been dismissed vide orders dated 11.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and against that order LPA No. 819 of 2010 has been preferred by C.S. Agarwal.

2. Another accused in the said FIR is D.K. Jain. He has also filed LPA No. 825 of 2010 challenging the same judgment, inter alia, on the ground that some of the observations in the said orders are prejudicial to him and therefore, he is also an aggrieved party. The respondents took a primary objection to the maintainability of these LPAs contenting the judgment of the learned Single Judge was passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction and a Letters Patent Appeal against such an order is clearly barred by Clause 10 and Clause 18 of the Letters Patent Constituting the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, which is application to the Judicature of High Court of Delhi as well.

3. The Division Bench heard the matter on this aspect and vide orders dated 14.01.2011 deemed it appropriate to refer the matter to the Full Bench making following reference for consideration:

"22. Accordingly, we make following reference for consideration the Full Bench:

"Whether the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing a FIR amount to invoking `original jurisdiction' or these proceedings are to be treated as invoking `criminal jurisdiction?"

4. This is how the matter came to be heard by this Bench and the arguments were heard on the aforesaid reference. We may point out at this stage itself that if the answer to the reference is that Shri C.A. Agarwal, by means of the aforesaid W.P.(Crl.) No. 57 of 2010 had invoked "original jurisdiction" the Letters Patent Appeal would be competent. On the other hand, if those proceedings are to be treated as invoking "criminal jurisdiction", then the consequence would be that intra-Court appeal, by means of present Letters Patent Appeal is barred by Clause 10 invoking Letters Patent Constituting the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, which parties agree, is applicable to the High Court of Delhi as well. The Division Bench while making the reference has stinctly stated the factual matrix of the events which led C.S. Agarwal to file the aforementioned writ petition. In order to understand the arguments of both the parties, we are reproducing the facts as stated by the Division Bench in its order dated 14.01.2011:

Mr. C. S. Aggarwal, director of M/S Rockman Projects Limited (referred to as `RPL'), made a representation, for the purpose of securing investment, to Mr. Sameer Kohli, director M/S Kohli Housing and Development Pvt. Ltd( in short KHPDL) that the RPL is intending to develop one SEZ on 250 acres land, which is owned by the RPL, situated on Delhi-Jaipur Highway at village Shidhrawali, Gurgaon, Haryana and for this project the petitioner has received in-principal approval dated 22.08.2006 from the Government of India. On the basis of this representation, after being got convinced by the petitioner that he has full authority, supported by the Board resolution dated 14.05.2007, to enter into commercial deals on behalf of RPL, respondent No. 3 agreed to buy 74% shares worth Rs. 185 crores in the Special purpose vehicle (SPL) formed for this purpose. Respondent No. 3 was told that when the final notification regarding SEZ will be received by the company, it will transfer the land to the SPV. In pursuant to this agreement, one MoU dated 18th June 2007 was signed and ad