2013 CRI. L. J. 4492 ::2013 (4) ADR 34 ::2013 (200) DLT 228 ::(2014) 1 CivLJ 276 ::2013 (4) RecCriR 710 ::2013 (4) Pun LR 1

Delhi High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Rajiv Shakdher, Suresh Kait , JJJ

(A) Letters Patent (Del) , Cl.10— Delhi High Court Act (26 of 1966) , S.5, S.10— Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.340, S.341, S.195— Letters Patent Appeal - Maintainability - Expression 'other than High Court' appearing in S. 341 of 1974 Code would not disable aggrieved party to prefer Letters Patent Appeal, if it is otherwise maintainable, under other statutes and provisions in law. Criminal P.C. (5 of 1898) , S.476B, S.476(2)— Provisions both under S. 476 (2) of the Old Code and under S. 340 (2) of New Code allow, a superior court to withdraw an application filed under S. 476(1) of the Old Code, on which the court had neither ordered institution of a complaint nor rejected the application for making such a complaint. It is quite possible that such a situation could arise where an application is filed before a single Judge and neither a complaint is made nor is the application for making the complaint, rejected. If the single Judge is a court subordinate to a Division Bench under S. 195(4) of the New Code, the appellate court could withdraw the complaint to itself. Therefore, by virtue of presence of this intrinsic evidence, the plea that the expression 'other than the High Court' occurring in S. 341 sought to exclude an intra court appeal completely, is not correct. What it did seek to exclude was an appeal under Section 341 of ....