The nature of the proceeding and the relief sought determine the jurisdiction, and the maintainability of the appeal depends on the understanding of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. Aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

2. The writ petition was filed claiming the following reliefs:

“(a) Issue a direction to entrust the investigation of case arising from FIR No. 90 dated 23.6.2017, Police Station, Faridabad, District GRP Ambala Cantt., under Section 323, 324, 302, 34 IPC (Annexure P/1) to an independent agency, like Central Bureau of Investigation;

(b) Issue appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondents for providing adequate and appropriate security to the petitioner, his family and the prosecution witnesses in view vulnerability and the nature of the crime;

(c) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the Ld. Trial Court to stay the proceedings during the pendency of the present petition;

(d) to (i) xx xx xx”

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. It is the aforesaid judgment, which has been impugned in the present intra-court appeal.

4. At the very out-set, learned counsel for the State, while referring to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana and others, (2017) 5 SCC 533, raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present appeal, as the matter relates to a criminal jurisdiction. He submitted that in the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that in criminal matters, nomenclature of the case will not be relevant. Even if a Civil Writ Petition had been filed, Letters Patent Appeal cannot be filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He further submitted that after due investigation in the matter by the police, challan was presented against one accused under Section 302 IPC, however, the Court considering the entire material placed before it and hearing the complainant, framed charge under Section 302 IPC against two accused. The trial is being held on day-to-day basis in view of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. M-37007 of 2017—Rameshwar Dass @ Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Haryana, decided on 6.10.2017. Out of total 45 prosecution witnesses, 19 have already been examined. Despite notice to the appellant, who is the complainant, he is not appearing for getting his evidence recorded.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Clause X of the Letters Patent talks about exercise of criminal jurisdiction. In the case in hand, this Court was not exercising criminal jurisdiction. All what the appellant had claimed before the learned Single Judge was fair investigation, which is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as has been held in State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others, (2010) 3 SCC 571. The direction was sought for entrusting investigation of the case to an independent agency, such as Central Bureau of Investigation. Such a relief could not be claimed in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. In the alternative, it was submitted that in case this court finds that the present appeal is not maintainable, the appellant be given two weeks' time to avail of his remedy before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the proceedings before the trial court should remain stayed. In case the trial is concluded, the relief sought by the appellant will become infructuous.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

8. The reliefs, for which the writ petition was filed by the appellant, have been reproduced in paragraph No. 2 of the judgment. Briefly, the facts, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that Junaid (son of the appellant) was murdered on 22.6.2017 and his two other sons, namely, Hashim and Shakir suffered serious injuries. FIR No. 90 dated 23.6.2017 was registered on the statement of Hashim. The investigation carried out by the police was quite casual. Proper offences were not added. The effort was to save the real accused or bo