RAM KISHAN FAUJI versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 4 S.C.R. 553 · Decided: 21-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 4 S.C.R. 553 
RAM KISHAN FAUJI 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4288of2017) 
MARCH 21, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND 
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] 
Letters Patent: 
A 
·B 
Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) - Writ petition 
C 
u/Art. 226 of the Constitution -
Seeking quashing of 
recommendation of Lokayukta for registration of FIR and 
investigation - Single Judge of High Court allowed the writ petition 
quashing the recommendation - Letters Patent Appeal - Allowed -
Appeal challenging maintainability of the LPA - Held: Till a D 
competent legislature takes away the power of the Letters Patent, 
the same can be exercised by the High Court under Cl. 10 of the 
Letters Patent to the High Court - However, exercising such 
jurisdiction, it is imperative to see what is the nature of jurisdiction 
that has actually been provided in the Letters Patent· - If the 
proceedings, nature and relief sought pertain to anything connected E 
with criminal jurisdiction, LPA would not lie, as the same is not 
provided in Cl. I 0 of Letters Patent - Conception of 'criminal 
jurisdiction' as used in Cl. 10 encompasses in its gamut the inception 
and the consequence - In the present case, the nature of the 
proceedings was criminal and not civil - Therefore, the LPA was 
F 
not maintainable - Letters Patent (as applicable to erstwhile Punjab 
& Lahore High Courts) - Cl. 10. 
Court Proceedings : 
Nature/character of court proceedings - Determination of -
Held: Character of the proceedings does not depend upon the nature 
G 
of the tribunal which is invested with the authority to grant relief. 
but upon the nature of the right violated and the appropriate relief 
which may be claimed. 
Civil proceedings and criminal proceedings - Distinction 
between - Discussed. 
553 
H 
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Till a competent legislature takes away the power 
of the Letters Patent, the same can be exercised by the High 
Court. However, while exercising the power under the Letters 
Patent, it is imperative to see what is the nature of jurisdiction 
B 
that has actually been provided in the Letters Patent. The 
exercise of jurisdiction has to be within the ambit and scope of 
the authority enshrined in the provision meant for intra-court 
appeal. [Para 28) [511-B] 
Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra and others 
C 
(2005) 2 SCC 591 : [2005] 1 SCR 223 - followed. 
D 
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay & another v. 
Ishwarlal Bhagwandas and others [1966) 1 SCR 190; 
Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat and 
others (2015) 9 SCC 1 : [2015] 6 SCR 504 - relied on. 
4, An appeal shall lie from the judgment of a Single Judge 
to a Division Bench of the High Court if it is so permitted within 
the ambit and sweep of the Letters Patent. The power conferred 
. on the High Court by the Letters Pa_tent can be abolished or 
curtailed by the competent legislature by bringing appropriate 
E 
legislation. A writ petition which assails the order of a civil court 
in .. the High Court has to be understood, in all circumstances, to 
be a challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution and 
determination by the High Court under the said Article and, 
hence, no intra-court appeal is entertainable. The ~~nability of 
intra-court appeal will depend upon the Bench 3dju11icating the 
F 
/is as to how it understands and appreciates the ordl-r passed by 
the Single Judge. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for the 
sarite. [Para 46] (579-E-H) 
G 
Hari Vishnu Karnath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and others 
AIR 1955 SC 233 : [1955] SCR 1104 -
held 
inapplicable. 
T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa: AIR 1954 SC 440: [1955] 
SCR 250 - referred to. 
3. A civil proceeding is one in which a person seeks to 
H 
enforce by approprfate relief the alleged infringement of his civil 
RAM KISHAN FAUJI v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
555 
rights against another person or the State, and which, if the claim A 
is proved, would result in the declaration, express or implied, of 
the right claimed and relief such as payment of debt, damages, 
compensation, delivery of specific property, enforcement of 
personal rights, determination of status, etc. A criminal proceeding 
is ordinarily one which, if carried to its conclusion, may result in 
B 
imposition of (i) sentence, and (ii) it can take within its ambit the 
larger interest of the State, orders to prevent apprehended breach 
of peace

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.