The appeal from an order passed by a single judge under the writ jurisdiction, disposing finally a criminal case, is prohibited due to the specific bar of section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) precluding the review of a judgment disposing a criminal case.

JUDGMENT :

Atul Sreedharan, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants who are aggrieved by the order/judgment dated 6th December 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in OWP No. 1020/2015, dismissing a petition under Article 226 filed by the appellants praying therein for two reliefs, one being the quashment of FIR bearing No.16/2014 registered at Police Station VOK, Srinagar, under the provisions of the PC Act and the IPC, and if the Court was not amenable to the same, it be pleased to direct the registration or inclusion of the Respondent No.4 in the writ petition as an accused, in the same case where the appellant is an accused. Respondent No. 4 in the Writ Petition is also Respondent No.4 in this appeal.

2. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondents with regard to the maintainability of this appeal, as the impugned order has been passed in a writ petition which has the colour of a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and as an order passed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, cannot be taken up by the Division Bench of the same Court under the LPA jurisdiction, the present appeal is not maintainable. It was also urged on the part of Respondent No. 4 that the matter is no longer res integra and has been decided by the Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Fauji vs State of Haryana & Ors - 2017 (5) SCC 533, where the Supreme Court held that an order of a single judge of the High Court disposing of a petition under Article 226, which is in the nature of quash petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C, cannot thereafter be challenged before the Division Bench of the same Court in Letters Patent Appeal. Interestingly, this judgment has also been relied upon by Mr. M.A. Qayoom, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, with specific reference to paragraphs 17 to 26. We shall advert to the facts and circumstances of the said case elsewhere in this judgment. It was also pointed out to us by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondents that a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16th August 2021 passed in LPA No. 80/202; CrlM No. 343/2020 and LPA No. 84/2021; CM No. 4348/2021, has dealt with a similar matter, whereby it held that a Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge while deciding a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not maintainable. We shall deal with the said judgment also at the appropriate place in this judgment.

3. Though the facts of this case have been elaborately dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order/judgment, we feel it essential to briefly refer to the same herein. The Appellant No. 1 is the Managing Director of the State Forest Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘SFC’) and he retired on 29th February 2012, while the Appellant No. 2 is the Range Officer of the SFC, who retired on 30th June 2013. They have been charged with making illegal appointments of twelve Grading Attendants, which according to them was already gone into by a learned Single Judge of this Court in SWP No. 352/2012 and SWP No. 354/2012, wherein it was held that there was no violation of any law while making engagements/appointments, and that the Chairman of the SFC had himself in a fair manner accorded the approval on the basis of material placed before him by the Competent Authority, who was Managing Director of the SFC (Appellant No. 1).

4. However, an FIR was nonetheless registered against them under the aforementioned provisions on a prima facie disclosure of them having employed their close relatives for extraneous and underhand considerations. It was to quash the said FIR that the Writ Petition was filed by the appellants before this Court in which the learned Singe Judge vide judgment/ order dated 6th December 2022, dismissed the petition.

5. Before dealing with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Fauji’s case, it would be essential to give a brief background of that case. Ram Kishan Fauji was the acc