[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Md Iqbal Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2025
1 WA-3234-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WA No. 3234 of 2025
(MD IQBAL KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 02-12-2025
Shri Shivendra Pandey - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri B.D. Singh - Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
The appellant impugns order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.39365/2025, whereby the writ petition filed
by the appellant impugning the summons issued to the appellant by the
Investigating Officer in respect of FIR being Crime No.11/2025 registered
at Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS), Bhopal for the offences under Sections 318,
336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with
Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section 12 of the Passports Act,
1967, has been dismissed.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the State raises a preliminary
objection with regard to maintainability of an intra-court appeal. He submits
that since the appellant had approached and filed a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India assailing the steps taken in investigation of
an FIR and the writ proceedings being primarily pertaining to criminal case,
no intra-court appeal would be maintainable.
3. Reference is drawn by the learned counsel for the State on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji Vs. State of
Haryana (2017) 5 SCC 533, wherein the Supreme Court by referring to
Clause 10 of the Lahore High Court Letters Patent has held that no intra-
2 WA-3234-2025
court appeal would be maintainable.
4. Clause 10 of the Lahore High Court Letters Patent is extracted herein,
which reads as under:-
"10. Appeals to the High Court from Judges of the Court .--And we do
further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of
Judicature at Lahore from the judgment (not being a judgment passed
in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order
made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a court subject to the
superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in
the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order
passed or made in the exercise of power of superintendence under the
provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, or in the
exercise of criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the said High Court
or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the
Government of India Act, and that notwithstanding anything
hereinbefore provided an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a
judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any
Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India
Act, made on or after the first day of February, one thousand nine
hundred and twenty-nine in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in
respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate
jurisdiction by a court subject to the superintendence of the said High
Court where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case
is a fit one for appeal; but that the right of appeal from other judgments
of Judges of the said High Court or of such Division Court shall be to
Us, Our Heirs or Successors in Our or Their Privy Council, as
hereinafter provided."
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the provision
of Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth
Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 does not make a restriction of an intra-court
appeal in respect of criminal proceedings as in the case of Clause 10 of
the Lahore High Court Letters Patent.
6. Reference may also be had to Section 2 of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, which reads
as under:-
"Section - 2 . Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court from a
Judgement or order of one Judge of the High Court made in exercise of
original jurisdiction.
(1) An appeal shall lie from a Judgement or order passed by one Judge
3 WA-3234-2025
of the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, to a Division Bench comprising of two
judges of the same High Court:
Provided that no such appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order or
against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within 45 days from
the date of order passed by a single Judge :
Provided that any appeal may be admitted after the prescribed period of
45 days, if the petitioner satisfies the Division Bench that he had
sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period.
Explanation.- The fact that the petitioner was misled by any order,
practice or judgement of the High Court in ascertaining or computing
the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of
this sub-section.
(3) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed, heard and decided in
accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed by the High
Court."
7. Learned counsel for the parties pray for time to make their submissions
on the question of maintainability of this appeal.
8. List on 07.01.2026.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
C
