JUDGMENT :

Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) has been filed by the appellant in terms of Clause 12 of the J&K Letters Patent of 1943 against an order passed by learned Single Bench of this Court in petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now applicable in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir) filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C 1933 JK (now repealed). The two provisions are in pari materia to each other.

2. When this matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel Mr. T.M Shamsi, raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 12 of the J&K Letters Patent of 1943. The learned counsel submits that the LPA is not maintainable as is already held by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 80/2020 “titled Shamshada Akther vs. Aijaz Parvaiz Shah” decided on 16.08.2021.

3. Mr. R.A Jan, learned senior counsel submits that he is well aware of the Judgment, so referred by learned counsel for respondents, but the conclusion drawn on the strength of the Provisions of Law and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, needs a re-look as it appears that the Division Bench has not been properly assisted on the relevant provisions of law and the judgment on the subject were not brought on the notice of the Division Bench of this Court, therefore, submits that the Judgment is not applicable and makes an endavour that the Court may take a different view in tune with the scheme of law.

4. Brief Facts:

Appellant, Dr. Rafiq Masoodi, has challenged an FIR No. RC-03(A) of 2013 CBI/ACB, Srinagar dated 07.11.2016 registered with CBI/ACB Srinagar, in CRM (M) 24/2017 on the grounds stated in the 482 Petition and as discussed by the learned Single Judge seeking quashment of the FIR(s).

5. The petition was dismissed by order impugned dated 28.09.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court as being without merit. The instant LPA has been filed in terms of Clause 12 of the J&K Letters Patent, challenged the impugned order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. We heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.

7. The objection to the maintainability of this LPA is taken on the same grounds which were taken by respondent’s counsel in case LPA No. 80/2020 titled “Shamshada Akther vs. Aijaz Parvaiz Shah”, decided on 16.08.2021.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the power exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is not supervisory, but the provision saves the inherent powers of the Court, and that inherent powers are not the same as powers of superintendence. In this connection, the Court was taken through Section 482 Cr.P.C.

9. Mr. R.A Jan, learned senior counsel further submitted that the Division Bench of this court while declaring that the LPA is not maintainable against the order passed by Single Judge under Section 482 Cr.P.C has referred to judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana, AIR 2017 SC 1535 which is not applicable to the fact circumstances of the case.

10. Mr. R.A Jan, learned senior counsel has further while strengthening his argument referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported as (2017) 9 SCC 641 titled Parbathai Aahir v. State of Gujarat and anr; AIR 1965 SC 1442 titled South Asia Industries (P) Ltd v. S.B Sarup Singh and ors; (2017) 5 SCC 553 titled Ram Krishan Fuiji v. State of Hayana and ors and (1977) 2 SCC 699 titled State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors.

11. At the very outset, we may observe that the contentions raised by Mr. R.A Jan, learned senior counsel with reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not make any scope for maintainability of this appeal under clause 12 of the letters patent 1943. Mr. Jan has referred to section 372 Cr.P.C 1973 and clause 12 of the Letters Patent