LPA No. 175/2026 Page 1 Serial No. 07 REGULAR CAUSE LIST HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(5091/2026) In LPA 175/2026 Abdul Majeed Lone S/O: Haji Gh. Rasool Lone R/O: Langate District Kupwara …Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Shariq J Reyaz, Advocate with Ms. Humaira Sajad, Advocate Vs. Abdul Hamid Thoker S/O: Abduk Jabbar Thoker R/O: Langate District, Kupwara ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 10.08.2026 01. This intra-court appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against an order and judgment dated 10th April, 2026, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court [“the writ Court”] in CRM(M) No. 782/2024, whereby the writ Court has allowed the quashing petition filed in terms of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS) 2023. 02. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment has been passed by the writ Court primarily in the exercise of jurisdiction which is criminal in nature MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 12.08.26 LPA No. 175/2026 Page 2 and, therefore, intra-court appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable. 03. There are numerous judgments of the Coordinate Benches of this Court setting the controversy at rest with regard to the maintainability of appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent arising from an order and judgment passed by the learned Single Judge passed in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction, viz “(i) LPA No. 80/2020 titled “Shamshada Akhter Vs. Aijaz Parvaiz Shah” decided on 16th August, 2021, (ii) LPA No. 204/2023 titled “Khursheed Ahmad Chohan Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors.” decided on 19th September, 2024 and (iii) LPA No. 154/2023 titled “Rohit Sharma Vs. Rukhsana Begum and Anr.”, decided on 04th December, 2023. 04. From a reading of the aforesaid judgments, it is settled that an appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this Court is not maintainable against an order or judgment passed by a learned Single Judge in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. 05. It is not disputed before us that in the instant case the jurisdiction which the writ Court has exercised is the criminal jurisdiction and, therefore, in view of the position of law settled in the aforementioned cases, the appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable. We are aware of a subsequent development that has taken place in the case of LPA No. 23/2018 in case titled “Dr. Sumit Sabarwal Vs. Dr. Om Parkash Gupta and Ors.” in which a Division Bench of this Court has doubted the MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 12.08.26 LPA No. 175/2026 Page 3 correctness of the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench in Shamshada Akhter (supra) and has referred the matter to the larger Bench. A Full Bench of this Court is seized of the matter. 06. It is in this background, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the consideration of this matter may be deferred till the decision from the Full Bench comes. We are afraid that we cannot accept such submission. It is trite law that where a reference to a larger Bench on a question of law is pending adjudication, the position of law which is doubted by the Bench referring the matter to the larger Bench, must prevail. The pending review or reference does not make the existing judgments ineffective or non-binding. The judgment doubted by the referring Bench must be followed unless or until the larger Bench hearing reference overrules it. 07. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent seeking to challenge a judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction is clearly not maintainable. This appeal is accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to the appellant to work out his remedies as may be available to him under law. (Mohd Yousuf Wani) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Chief Justice (Acting) SRINAGAR: 10.08.2026 “Mir Arif” (i) Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No. (ii) Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No. MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 12.08.26