Jagmohan Singh filed Criminal Writ Petition No.898 of 2009 under Article 226 of the Constitution of In­dia, wherein he sought a writ in the nature ofcertiorari, for quashing a first information report dated 15.09.2009, lodged by Upendra Singh Maniyari, on the alleged commission of the offence of abetment to suicide, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid first information report was regis­tered as Crime Case No. 97 of 2009 at Police Station Basant Vihar in District Dehradun.

2. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 898 of 2009 it was alleged by the aforesaid Jagmohan Singh alias Raj, that his marriage was settled with Sweta alias Ritu, sister of the aforesaid Upendra Singh Maniyari. The engagement ceremony between Jagmohan Singh and Sweta alias Ritu was held on 14.01,2009, whereafter, the parties agreed, that the marriage ceremony would be held on 28.09.2009. On 13/14.09.2009 Sweta alias Ritu consumed poison. She died on 14.09.2009. On 15.09.2009 Upendra Singh Maniyari, the brother of the deceased, lodged the aforesaid first information report alleg­ing that his sister Sweta alias Ritu had com­mitted suicide due to demand of dowry, by Jagmohan Singh alias Raj.

3. A learned single Judge, after examining the contents of the first information report as also the SMS (short message service) ad­dressed by Jagmohan Singh alias Raj to Sweta alias Ritu, dated 13.09.2009, arrived at the conclusion that no offence under Section 306 of the IPC was made out. Accordingly, the learned single Judge, while allowing the writ petition on 18.11.2009 quashed the first in­formation report dated 15.09.2009 lodged by Upendra Singh Maniyari.

4. Through the instant "Special Appeal", Upendra Singh Maniyari, the brother of the deceased Sweta alias Ritu, has assailed the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 18.11.2009, allowing Criminal Writ Petition No. 898 of 2009.

5. Before we could proceed with the de­termination of the controversy on merits, we were confronted with the issue of maintain­ability of the instant "Special Appeal". Learned counsel for respondent No.1 (Jagmohan Singh alias Raj), invited our, at­tention to Rule 5 contained in Section C of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the Court, 1952(which provides for an intra court appeal) and submitted, that the impugned order dated 18.11.2009, having been rendered by the learned single Judge in exercise of "criminal jurisdiction" vested in him, was not appeal­able by way of a "Special Appeal", to this Court.

6. The same objection, as has been noticed in the foregoing paragraph, has also been raised in Special Appeal No. 220 of 2009 (Rajesh Dube versus State of Uttarakhand and others) and Special Appeal No. 225 of 2009 (Dinesh Lal Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and oth­ers). For adjudication on the issue of main­tainability, all the aforementioned Special Appeals are being taken up togetherr. With the consent of learned counsel representing the rival parties, Special Appeal No.216 of 2009 shall be treated as the lead case.

7. Keeping in view the importance of the issue involved Shri L.P. Naithani, the then Advocate General, Uttarakhand was also re­quested to assist the Court.

8. It is by now well settled, that no remedy (whether of appeal, revision or review) is available, unless it has been specifically pro­vided for. Only a court of competent juris­diction, duly vested with express or implied power, can adjudicate on a matter. It is defi­nitely not within the purview of a court on its judicial side, to vest itself, or any court sub­ordinate to it, with any such authority. In so far as the instant issue is concerned, refer­ence can be made to the decision rendered in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Navak and another. (1988) 2 SCC 602 : (AIR 1988 SC 1531) (Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 1986, decided on 29.04.1988), wherein it was observed as under :-

"The creation of a right to an appeal is an act which requires legislative authority, nei­ther an inferior court nor the superior Court nor