Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs R.Senthil Kumar on 6 March, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar, R.Vijayakumar
W.A.(MD) SR No.95742 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD) SR No.95742 of 2023
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by the Home Secretary
Fort St.George, Secretariat
Chennai-1
2.The Director General of Police
O/o.The Director General of Police
Beach Road, Chennai-1
3.The District Collector / District Magistrate
Collectorate, Ramanathapuram District
Ramanathapuram
4.The Superintendent of Police
O/o.The Superintendent of Police
Ramanathapuram District ... Appellants
-vs-
1.R.Senthil Kumar
2.The Superintendent of Police
CBCID, B.B.Kulam, Narimedu
Madurai District
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) SR No.95742 of 2023
3.The Inspector of Police
Paramakudi Town Police Station
Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District
4.Sivakumar
Inspector of Police
Inspector General of Police
South Zone, Puthunatham Road
Madurai District
5.Subash
Inspector of Police
Kalayar Kovil Police Station
Sivagangai District
6.Enathi Miniasamy
Sub-Inspector of Police
Keelathooval Police Station
Muthukulathur Taluk
Ramanathapuram District
7.Arumugam Nainar
Sub-Inspector of Police
Rameswaram Town Police Station
Rameswaram Taluk
Ramanathapuram District
8.Velu
Police Constable
Thirupulani Police Station
Ramanathapuram District
9.Gothandaraman
Police Constable
Kadaladi Police Station
Ramanathapuram District
____________
Page 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) SR No.95742 of 2023
10.Gnanakunasekaran
Police Constable
Kelakarai Police Station
Ramanathapuram District
11.Devanderan
Police Constable
Kelakarai Police Station
Ramanathapuram District
12.Nethi
Police Constable
Paramakudi Town Police Station
Kovilankulam Police Station
Kumudi Taluk
Ramanathapuram District ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 26.07.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.11610 of 2013, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.] This matter is listed today under the caption "For Maintainability".
____________ Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD) SR No.95742 of 2023
2. A writ appeal is sought to be filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 26.07.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.11610 of 2013.
3. The proposed appellants have raised several grounds with which we are not inclined to express any view, as we are called upon now to decide the very maintainability of the present writ appeal at the SR stage, at the instance of the Registry.
4. To be noted, in S.768, K.N.Pudur Primary Agricultural Co-
operative Credit Society Ltd., vs. G.Balakrishnan and others, order dated 30.01.2018 in W.A.SR No.1941 of 2018, this Court has held as follows:
“8. ... From the above extract of Clause 15, it is also clear that intra Court appeal is not provided if a single Judge has exercised criminal jurisdiction sitting and hearing the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in the decision reported in 2017 (5) SCC 533 (Ram Kishan Fauji Vs. State of Haryana), categorically ____________ Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD) SR No.95742 of 2023 held that it is manifest that no intra-Court appeal lies against the order of the single Judge in exercise of the criminal jurisdiction. When there are proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising from an order made by the Court in exercise of the power conferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), it would be a criminal proceedings within the meaning of the Letters Patent. On a plain reading of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, it is clear that no appeal lies against the order passed by the learned single Judge in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. Further, the Court in a writ appeal pursuant to Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, exercises appellate jurisdiction and not a jurisdiction as conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When a power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked at the instance of a litigant with regard to any criminal matter, it is deemed to have been exercised by the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, no intra-Court appeal is permissible. The Bench hearing the matters pertaining to Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereas the Bench hearing the matters exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is empowered to deal with the issues that may fall under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As the ____________ Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD) SR No.95742 of 2023 jurisdiction exercised in this case is one under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only appeal will lie to the Supreme Court and not before the Division Bench of the Court.
...
...
12. Hence, we are of the view that if the appellant-Society is aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned single Judge, it is always open for the appellant-Society to approach the Apex Court and not by filing the Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court.
5. Following the above decision, this Court in Ajay Kumar Bishnoi vs. The Inspector of Police and others, order dated 12.10.2022 in W.A.No.2167 of 2022, has held as follows:
“12. Hence, we are of the view that if the appellant-Society is aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned single Judge, it is always open for the appellant-Society to approach the Apex Court and not by filing the Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court.” ____________ Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD) SR No.95742 of 2023
6. A perusal of the order against which this writ appeal is sought to be filed shows that it has been passed by the learned Single Judge while exercising criminal jurisdiction and hearing matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as per roster. Therefore, we are of the view that this appeal as against the order passed by the learned Single Judge while exercising criminal jurisdiction is not maintainable and we uphold the objection raised by the Registry.
7. Accordingly, W.A.(MD) SR No.95742 of 2023 stands rejected at the SR stage itself. No costs.
[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.]
06.03.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The Home Secretary,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai-1.
____________
Page 7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD) SR No.95742 of 2023
2.The Director General of Police, O/o.The Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai-1.
3.The District Collector / District Magistrate, Collectorate, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
4.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Superintendent of Police, CBCID, B.B.Kulam, Narimedu, Madurai District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
____________ Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD) SR No.95742 of 2023 D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
krk W.A.(MD) SR No.95742 of 2023 06.03.2024 ____________ Page 9 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis