The court determined that the maintainability of Letters Patent Appeals against orders of a Single Judge in criminal jurisdiction requires clarification, as existing interpretations may not be consistent with the Letters Patent's provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J

LPA No. 23/2018

1. Appellant Dr. Sumit Sabarwal has called in question order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby in a writ petition (OWP No. 840/2016) filed by respondent No.1 against respondents No. 2 to 7, the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station has been directed to register the First Information Report. The respondent-Inspector General of Police, Jammu has further been directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team to investigate the matter.

2. It appears that son of respondent No.1 (the writ petitioner) had died on 17.03.2013 and, with regard to the said incident, respondent No.1-the writ petitioner had submitted a number of representations to the concerned Police Station for investigating the circumstances about the death of his son. When no action was taken by the official respondents, the aforesaid writ petition came to be filed by respondent No.1 seeking issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the official respondents to convey to the Court, the status, stage and outcome/result of the inquiry/investigation with regard to the mysterious and suspicious death of petitioner’s son late Dr. Nitan Gupta and his other associate, late Dr. Vikrant Sharma. The learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing the parties and considering the material on record, issued the impugned directions upon the official respondents.

3. It seems that the appellant was not a party to the proceedings before the writ Court, but, in terms of order dated 17.05.2018 passed by this Court, he has been permitted to file an appeal against the impugned order passed by the writ Court. It is, in these circumstances, that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present appeal on the ground that a Letters Patent Appeal does not lie against an order/judgment passed by a Single Judge of this Court in exercise of his criminal jurisdiction. It has been contended that since the learned writ Court has passed the impugned directions while exercising his powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as such, no LPA would lie against the said order. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that the aforesaid position of law has been settled by this Court in numerous judgments, particularly in the cases of Shamshada Akhter vs Aijaz Parvaiz Shah (LPA No. 80/2021, decided on 16.08.2021), Abdul Qayoom Khan and anr vs. State of J&K and others (LPA No. 265/2022, decided on 02.08.2023), Rohit Sharma vs Rukhsana Begum and another (LPA No. 154/2023, decided on 04.10.2023) and Khursheed Ahmad Chohan vs. UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others (LPA No. 204/21023, decided on 19.09.2024). He has also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Krishan Fouji vs State of Haryana and others, (2017) 5 SCC 533.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh is quite distinct from the corresponding clauses of Letters Patent conferring power of appeal against an order/judgment of a Single Judge pertaining to other High Courts of the Country. It has been contended that the exclusion of orders passed in criminal jurisdiction is specifically provided in the relevant clauses of Letters Patents applicable to other High Courts, whereas the exclusion of orders/judgments passed in criminal jurisdiction is conspicuously absent in Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, which confers power upon the High Court to hear an appeal against an order/judgment passed by a Single Judge. It has been further contended that, in view of the distinctive feature of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Krishan Fauji’s case (supra) cannot