2023 (10) TMI 1364 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of an intra-Court appeal against an order passed in a criminal matter by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - An intra-Court writ appeal does not lie against an order/ judgment passed by the learned Single Bench in exercise of the criminal writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the Gauhati High Court Rules are silent on this issue, the anomaly shall forthwith be clarified with appropriate insertion in the Rules clarifying the position that no intra- Court appeal lies against an order/judgment passed by the learned Single Bench in exercise of the criminal writ jurisdiction. The intra-Court writ appeal preferred by the appellant herein against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby dismissed as being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues involved:
The maintainability of an intra-Court writ appeal against an order passed by the learned Single Bench in exercise of criminal writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

Issue 1: Maintainability of intra-Court writ appeal in criminal matters

The appellant sought to challenge the dismissal of a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR and charges framed against him by the trial court. The High Court examined the rules and relevant case law, including the decision in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana, where it was held that a Letters Patent Appeal does not lie against an order passed by a Single Judge in criminal matters. The appellant relied on various judgments, but the court found that none addressed the specific issue of maintainability of an intra-Court writ appeal in criminal writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the court concluded that no intra-Court appeal lies against an order passed by the Single Bench in criminal writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the High Court dismissed the intra-Court writ appeal as not maintainable, emphasizing the need for clarity in the rules regarding the same.

End of Summary