Madras High Court
Abirami vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 December, 2021
W.A.Sr.No.92091 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 10.12.2021
Pronounced on : 15.12.2021
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.SR.No.92091 of 2021
Abirami
W/o.Murugan .. Appellant/Petitioner
Vs
1.The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Officer,
Villupuram District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Crime Branch Villupuram District,
Villupuram District.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Anti Land Grabbing Branch,
Villupuram District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Vanur Police Station,
Villupuram District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Superintendent of Police Office,
Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell,
Villupuram District.
6. Hari Krishnan
S/o. Jayaram ... Respondents/Writ Petitioners
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Sr.No.92091 of 2021
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 12.03.2021 made in the W.P.No.6306 of 2021 and allow
this appeal
For Appellant : Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan
For Respondents :
JUDGMENT
S.SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
This matter is listed under the caption “for maintainability”.
2. Heard Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan, learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant relying on the rulings of Division Bench of this Court reported in CDJ 2018 MHC 8153 in the case of M/s.Coastal Energen Pvt., Ltd., Represented by Authorised Signatory, Chennai & Others -vs- The State of West Bengal, Represented by its Secretary, Kolkotta and Others which was a Writ Appeal against the Order passed by the learned Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Sr.No.92091 of 2021 Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.11192 of 2015 dated 06.06.2017. The said Writ Appeal was based on the finding of the learned Single Judge of this Court that Writ Petition directing the Police in West Bengal to quash the FIR is not maintainable in this Court. This High Court has no territorial Jurisdiction over the West Bengal. Therefore, the Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the question of maintainability. In the Writ Appeal, it was argued that the technicality of law alone was considered and merits of the case was not considered. Therefore, the Writ Appeal was numbered. In the Writ Appeal order was passed remitting the Writ Petition back to the Single Judge to dispose the Writ Petition on merits. It is an exemption to the Rule. The same cannot be considered as Writ Appeal maintainable against order in Writ Petition in all cases.
4. The ratio laid down in that cases is not applicable to the facts in this case. As per the powers conferred under the Letters Patent, intra Court Appeal is not available in Writ Petition dealing with criminal matters.
5. In the reported decision, the Writ Appeal was allowed with direction that the Writ Petition is to be decided on merits and remitted Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Sr.No.92091 of 2021 back to the learned Single Judge. Whereas, in this case, it is against the findings given by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition directing the Investigation Officer regarding the Investigation. Therefore, this is a Writ Appeal on the criminal law. In such cases, the Letters Patent does not permit intra Court Appeal.
6. As per the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji -vs- State of Haryana and others reported in (2017) 5 SCC 533, no Letters Patent Appeal lies against the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. The vital factor for determination of the maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal is the nature of jurisdiction invoked by the party and the true nature of the order passed by the Single Judge of High Court. In the above case it has been held as under:
“Petition was filed under for quashing of the recommendation of the Lokayukta – Said recommendation would have led to launching of criminal prosecution, and, as the factual matrix reveals, FIR was registered and criminal investigation was initiated – Single Judge analysed the report and ultimate recommendation of statutory authority and thought it seemly to quash the same and after quashing same, as he found that FIR had been registered, he annulled it treating the same as a natural consequence – Thus, effort of the writ petitioner was to avoid a criminal investigation and final order of court is quashment of the registration of FIR and the subsequent Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Sr.No.92091 of 2021 investigation – In such situation, to hold that the learned Single Judge, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution, has passed an order in a civil proceeding as order that was challenged was that of the quasi- judicial authority, that is, the Lokayukta, would be conceptually fallacious – It is because what matters is the nature of the proceeding, and that is litmus test. Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable before the Division Bench and, consequently, order passed therein is wholly unsustainable and, it is set aside – Appeal allowed.”
7. Apart from the above ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this very same High Court had laid down the same in the following rulings:
(i) In the case of P.Balasubramaniyan -vs- The Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai – 625 023 and another [W.A.(MD) SR No.30600 of 2017].
(ii) In the case of D.Kumar -vs- Raichand Daga and others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 12156.
(iii) In the case of S.Sheik Mohamed -vs- The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District and others [W.A.(MD) SR.No.36027 of 2021].Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Sr.No.92091 of 2021
8.In the Writ Petition against which the Writ Appeal had been filed, the learned Judge was dealing with the subject as per roster, Writs (Criminal). Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant herein to number the Writ Appeal cannot at all be accepted, as it is against the principles of Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act and against the reported decision of Division Bench Rulings of this Court/High Court. Therefore, the Writ Appeal sought to be taken on file and urged that it is maintainable by the learned counsel is rejected.
9.In all the above cases, this High Court has held that in Writ Petitions filed on the criminal side, Writ Appeals are not maintainable in the High Court.
10.While so, the insistence of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner herein to number the Writ Appeal or to place it before Hon'ble Judges does not warrant indulgence of this Court. Hence, rejected.
(P.U., J) (S.S.K., J)
15.12.2021
Index:Yes/No
srm
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Sr.No.92091 of 2021
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Officer,
Villupuram District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch Villupuram District, Villupuram District.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Branch, Villupuram District.
4. The Inspector of Police, Vanur Police Station, Villupuram District.
5. The Inspector of Police, Superintendent of Police Office, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Villupuram District.
Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Sr.No.92091 of 2021 PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and S.SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
srm Judgment made in W.A.SR.No.92091 of 2021 15.12.2021 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis