1 / 30 Ct. No.1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.D/L.8 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Saikat APPELLATE SIDE Mukherjee MAT/1651/2026 with CAN/1/2026 THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL ]… Appellant Versus MILAN PRADHAN AND OTHERS ]… Respondents Appearance: Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, A.A.G. with Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, A.G.P., Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Mr. Milind Mohul Ghosh, Ms. Sagnika Banerjee, Ms. Rita Das, Mr. Soumya Raha and Mr. Yuvraj Chatterjee, …..Advocates for the Appellant Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Banerjee, Mr. Zohaib Rauf, Mr. Ajitesh Pandey, Ms. Sriparna Das, Mr. Sk. Anwar Ali, Mr. Jayanta Narayan Das, Mr. S. Ghosh, Mr. Prashant Bagchi, Ms. Sumitra Neogi, Mr. Abid Jamal, Mr. Manojit Bhattacharya, Ms. Anjana Banerjee, Ms. Sarbani Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Samirul Sardar, Mr. Mrinmoy Bhattacharyya, Mr. Abhi Bhattacharya, Mr. Arka Chakraborty, Mr. Anish Mukherjee, Mr. Kundan Bharti, Mr. Manish Ojha, Mr. Asfak Ahammed, ........Advocates for the Respondents CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, CJ. & OM NARAYAN RAI, J. DATE : 25th September, 2026. 2 / 30 ORDER (Per Court) 1. Considering that all the papers which placed before the learned Single Judge are before us, we have finally heard the Appeal along with the Application for stay, by consent of the parties. 2. By this intra-court Appeal, the State of West Bengal has assailed an order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court dated 24.09.2026, in Writ Petition no.27141 of 2026, filed by Shri Milan Pradhan vs. The State of West Bengal and Others. For the sake of brevity, we are reproducing the said order dated 24.09.2026, hereunder:- “1. Matter is heard in presence of learned advocates representing petitioner and State respondents. 2. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, learned Senior Advocate representing petitioner submits that writ petition was heard on 22nd September, 2026 when two sets of criminal prosecutions were considered by this Court in view of particulars indicated in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the writ petition. 3. In presence of learned Senior Advocate representing petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General representing State respondents it was not surfaced before this Court that another criminal prosecution being Khejuri Police Station Case No.45/2007 dated 31st July, 2007 corresponding to G.R. Case No.369/2007 was pending against petitioner. Based on submissions made on behalf of State respondents, Court proceeded on the premise that petitioner was in custody on 22nd September, 2026 in connection with five criminal 3 / 30 prosecutions as stated in paragraph 27 and out of six criminal prosecutions stated in paragraph 28, it was found five were not subsisting and in Nandigram Police Station Case No.156/2007 dated 10th October, 2007 petitioner is not accused. 4. Had pendency of criminal prosecution being Khejuri Police Station Case No.45/2007 dated 31st July, 2007 been brought to the notice of this Court on 22nd September, 2026, same could have been taken into consideration 5. On 22nd September, 2026 Court directed the writ petition to appear in the supplementary list for further consideration on 12th October, 2026 having found that apart from five criminal prosecutions as disclosed in paragraph 27 no other criminal prosecutions are pending against petitioner. Subsequently, matter was mentioned on behalf of petitioner on 23rd September, 2026 in view of urgency since petitioner was treated arrested after 22nd September, 2026 in connection with Khejuri Police Station Case No.45/2007 dated 31" July, 2007. 6. Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, learned Additional Advocate General has placed before this Court order dated 19th September, 2026 passed in G.R. Case No.369/2007 which is connected to Khejuri Police Station Case No.45/2007 dated 31st July, 2007 wherefrom it appears that Investigating Officer prayed for "shown arrest of the petitioner being accused in view of warrant of arrest issued against petitioner. It is contended on behalf of State respondents that production warrant was subsisting but Court does not find any document wherefrom it can be concluded that production warrant in connection with Khejuri Police Station Case No.45/2007 dated 31st July, 2007 was served upon petitioner at the material point of time. Therefore, contention of State respondents regarding execution of production warrant is negated at this stage. 7. It is also surprising to note herein that aforesaid criminal prosecution is of 2007 and Investigating Officer made a prayer for treating petitioner as "shown arrest" before the court below on 19th September, 2026. 4 / 30 8. Concerned police authorities are directed not to take any step against petitioner till 12th October, 2026 in connection with Khejuri Police Station Case No.45/2007 dated 31st July, 2007 and petitioner shall not be treated as arrested in the said criminal prosecution. 9. In terms of previous order dated 22nd September, 2026 matter shall appear in the supplementary list.” 3. The original Petitioner preferred the Writ Petition before the Learned Single Judge on the Appellate Side invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the pleadings in the Writ Petition, he disclosed that he was presently in judicial custody and lodged at Haldia Correctional Home, Bhabanipur, Purba Medinipur. It was stated in the Petition that because he is a candidate belonging to a particular political party, he desired an opportunity to canvass his candidature for a by-election. We are informed that there are two by-elections scheduled on 6th October, 2026, and the counting of votes is to commence on 9th October, 2026. 4. There are several other aspects touching the journey of the original Petitioner in public life and the political scene in the State of West Bengal, which are averred at length in his Writ Petition, which are not relevant to be recorded in our order, considering the issue addressed to us. 5 / 30 5. The original Petitioner has specifically averred in paragraph nos.25 to 30 as under:- “25. On September 19, 2026, the Petitioner was produced before the Ld. ACJM, Haldia and was remanded to judicial custody till October 3, 2026. He is presently lodged at Haldia Sub-Correctional Home. 26. On September 20, 2026, the said ASI Pradip Kumar Panda of Nandigram Police Station executed another purported Warrant of Arrest in connection with Nandigram PS Case No. 09/07 dated 08.01.2007 (GR-21/07) by showing the Petitioner to be arrested in connection with the same. 27. The Petitioner has till now been arrested in the following cases: Sl. Case No. Status of the Petitioner 1 Nandigram PS Case No. 75/07 dated. 30.04.2007 In Judicial Custody 2 Nandigram PS Case No.221/07 dated 15.11.2007 In Judicial Custody 3 Nandigram PS Case No.188/07 dated 08.11.2007 (P-1 gives 18.11.2007) In Judicial Custody 4 Khejuri PS Case No. 44/07 dated 30.07.2007 In Judicial Custody 5 Nandigram PS Case No. 09/07 dated 08.01.2007 In Judicial Custody 28 The Petitioner reasonably apprehends that more cases will be produced one after another and that each will be used to keep him in custody until the polling is over. Following are the cases which the Petitioner knows are pending against him and has not yet shown to have been arrested in connection with the same: 6 / 30 Sl. Case No. Status of the Petitioner 1 Nandigram PS Case No. 359/07 dated. 23.11.2007 No arrest shown. 2 Nandigram PS Case No.83/07 dated 05.05.2007 No arrest shown. 3 Nandigram PS Case No. 61/07 dated 04.07.2007 No arrest shown. 4 Khejuri PS Case No. 54/07 dated 23.03.2007 No arrest shown. 5 Nandigram PS Case No. 24/07 dated 18.02.2007 No arrest shown. 6. Nandigram PS Case No. 156/07 dated 10.10.2007 No arrest shown. 29. On September 20, 2026, Mr. Bhattacharya sent a complaint by email to the Director General of Police, narrating these events. He asked that an FIR be registered against the SDPO, Nandigram and his subordinates involved, that disciplinary measures be initiated against them, and that the CCTV footage of Hotel Hindustan, the resort, Chandipur Police Station and the route, along with the relevant station diary and GD entries, be preserved. No FIR has followed. A true copy of the complaint, with the covering email, is annexed hereto and marked as 'Annexure P-4'. 30. The election timetable leaves no room for delay. Campaigning ends on October 4, 2026, polling is on October 6, 2026 and counting on October 9, 2026. The Petitioner is in custody till October 3, 2026 at the least. Recording systems in hotels and on the roads overwrite old footage after a limited period. The records that matter are held by the very officers who are the subject of the complaint” 7 / 30 6. In the set up of the above pleadings, the Petitioner had put forth prayers (a) to (j) below paragraph 36, which read as under:- “a) Dispense with the requirement of Rule 26 of the Writ Rules of this Hon'ble Court as to prior service of a copy of this petition on the respondents, for the reasons stated in the petition; b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 to register a First Information Report on the complaint dated 20.09.2026 of Mr. Subhasish Bhattacharya (Annexure P- 4) and on the facts stated in this petition, against the Police Respondents (respondent nos. 4 to 6 and 9 to 12) and any other police personnel who may be identified, and to entrust the investigation to an officer not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police, who shall not be one of the respondents, to be supervised by a retired Judge of this Hon'ble Court to be nominated by this Hon'ble Court and take appropriate disciplinary and legal action against the delinquent officers; c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to disclose on affidavit, within 24 hours, the particulars of every criminal case, whether registered, under investigation or pending trial, in which the Petitioner is or has been named, giving the police station, case number and date, sections, GR number, court and stage, whether any warrant is outstanding, and whether and when the Petitioner has been arrested or shown arrested in it; d) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents that no coercive step, including arrest, shown arrest or further arrest, shall be taken against the Petitioner in any case, till the date of counting of votes in the bye-election to 210 - Nandigram Assembly Constituency, being 09.10.2026; 8 / 30 e) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents that no coercive step, including arrest, shown arrest, shall be taken against the Petitioner specifically those mentioned in Paragraph No: 28, till the date of counting of votes in the bye-election to 210 - Nandigram Assembly Constituency, being 09.10.2026; f) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to seize and preserve, the CCTV footage and the recording devices and storage (DVR, NVR and cloud) of the following, for the period from 15.00 hours on 18.09.2026 to 24.00 hours on 19.09.2026, together with the station diary, general diary entries and lock-up records of the police stations concerned; (i) Chandipur Police Station and Nandigram Police Station; (ii) Hotel Hindustan, Chandipur; (iii) Mandarmani Royal Beach Resort; (iv) every other place in which the Petitioner was kept between his pick-up and his production before the Ld. ACJM, Haldia; (v)all traffic cameras, surveillance cameras, ANPR systems and highway cameras on the route from Chandipur through Nischinda Crossing to Mandarmani and onwards to Haldia; and (vi)the log books and GPS records of the Bolero and the Scorpio used to carry the Petitioner and Mr. Bhattacharya, and the booking and guest records of the hotel and the resort for 18.09.2026; g) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to obtain and preserve, the call detail records, tower location data and related records of the official mobile numbers of the Police Respondents (respondent nos. 4 to 6 and 9 to 12) from the service providers; 9 / 30 h) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding that all material seized or obtained under prayers above be kept in sealed cover in the custody of the Registrar General of this Hon'ble Court; i) Rule Nisi in terms of prayers above; j) Pass an interim order directing the Respondents that no coercive step, including arrest, shown arrest or further arrest, shall be taken against the Petitioner in any case, till the date of counting of votes in the bye- election to 210-Nandigram Assembly Constituency, being 09.10.2026;” SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE 7. The Learned Additional Advocate General for the State of West Bengal has canvassed that in the said Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, when the Petitioner had not sought quashing of any of the several FIRs registered against him for various offences, the Learned Single Judge had no reason to travel there beyond and pass the impugned order reproduced above. 8. He further submits that there are six offences registered against the original Petitioner punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation was launched in such cases. Suddenly, the erstwhile Government decided to withdraw all such cases against the original Petitioner, in 2020. This led to an uproar and WPA(P) 67 of 2021 and WPA (P) 68 of 2021 (PIL Petitions) 10 / 30 were filed before this Court. While dealing with the said PILs, the decision of the State Government was quashed and set aside by the Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 10.02.2025 and investigation was directed in all such cases. The original Petitioner is behind bars, as is conceded in the pleadings in the Petition and is presently in judicial custody. His bail applications seeking regular bail are pending before the appropriate jurisdictional Courts. 9. It is further submitted that the there was no suppression by the State Government before the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as, the Petitioner limited his prayer to the cases mentioned in paragraph 28 of the Writ Petition, as would be evident from the order dated 22nd September, 2026. It is also submitted that the petitioner was aware of the Khejuri Police Station Case no. 45/2007, inasmuch as, the orders of proclamation and attachment had been passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Contai, Purba Medinipur in the said cases. The order of proclamation had been executed by affixing a copy thereof on the house of the Petitioner. 10. He points out that the Petitioner’s prayer for bail has been rejected by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 23rd September, 2026. 11 / 30 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 11. The Learned Counsel for the original Petitioner has painstakingly narrated several factors revolving around the original Petitioner’s public life. It is further stated that he is contesting an election to the position of Member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of West Bengal for the first time. He is in jail and is canvassing for his candidature keeping in view that the polling day is scheduled on 6th October, 2026. 12. While opposing the present intra-court Appeal preferred by the State of West Bengal, he relies on the Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 533, to contend that this intra-court Appeal would not be tenable. 13. A short order has been passed by the Learned Single Judge. What has been objected to by the State of West Bengal are the contents of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned order, which have been reproduced herein above. OUR ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 14. It is apparent from the record that the original Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has not even mentioned, much less invoked any provision of the Cr.P.C. It is conceded that the original 12 / 30 Petitioner has not sought quashing of any of the FIRs registered against him. The pending cases are in the backdrop of a Judgment delivered by the Learned Division Bench of this Court dated 10.02.2025 in the WPA (P) No. 67 of 2021, thereby setting aside the decision of the State Government in withdrawing all the cases relating to offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and it is in the light of the said Judgment that the investigation commenced and the Petitioner is behind bars. 15. In Ram Kishan Fauji (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that a Letters Patent Appeal, would not be maintainable if the Learned Single Judge has exercised criminal jurisdiction. In paragraph 18 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded that on a plain reading of the relevant clause of the Letters Patent Appeal, it is manifest that no appeal lies against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. The question that needs our consideration is, whether the Learned Single Judge has exercised criminal jurisdiction. 16. In paragraph 56, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, ‘the conception of “criminal jurisdiction” as used in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is not to be construed in the narrow sense. It encompasses in its gamut the inception and the consequence. It is the field in respect of which the jurisdiction 13 / 30 is exercised, is relevant. It confers jurisdiction as regards the subject of controversy or nature of proceedings and that subject is exercise of jurisdiction in criminal matters’. 17. In paragraph 61 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted the facts before it by recording that the Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the recommendation of the Lokayukta. The recommendation led to launching of criminal prosecution. FIR was registered and criminal investigation was initiated. The Learned Single Judge analysed the report and the ultimate recommendation of the statutory authority, and thought it seemly to quash the same. After quashing the same, he found that the FIR had been registered and he annulled the FIR treating the same as a natural consequence. Thus, the effort of the Writ Petitioner in such case was to avoid initiation of a criminal proceeding and the final order of the Writ Court was quashing of the FIR and the subsequent investigation. 18. In the case in hands, it would be evident from the pleadings as well as the prayers made in the Writ Petition, that except prayers (a), (b) and (c), all the other prayers are for issuance of Writs of Mandamus to defer arrest until the elections conclude. We are conscious of the fact that prayer ‘a’ if granted or considered would amount to exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge since the registration of the FIR would lead to initiation of a 14 / 30 criminal proceeding. However, in the present case, the said aspect has not yet received consideration of the Learned Single Bench and no order has been passed in such regard as yet. 19. As to what would mean exercise of criminal jurisdiction, can be deduced from the following provisions of the same Letters Patent under clause 15 whereof the present appeal has been filed:- Criminal Jurisdiction. 22. Ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court.- And We do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal shall have ordinary original Criminal jurisdiction within the local limits of its ordinary original Civil jurisdiction and in respect of all persons beyond such limits, over whom the said Supreme Court at Calcutta now has Criminal jurisdiction. 23. Jurisdiction as to persons.- And We do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal in the exercise of its ordinary original Criminal jurisdiction, shall be empowered to try all persons brought before it in due course of law. 24. Extraordinary original Criminal jurisdiction.- And We do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal shall have extra-ordinary original Criminal jurisdiction over all persons residing in places within the jurisdiction of any Court now subject to the superintendence of the Sudder Nizamut Adalut at Calcutta, whether within or without the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort William, and shall have authority to try at its discretion any such persons brought before it on charges preferred by the Advocate-General, or by any Magistrate or other Officer specially empowered by the Government in that behalf. 15 / 30 25. No appeal from High Court exercising original jurisdiction.- And We do further ordain that there shall be no appeal to the said High Court of Judicature at the Fort William in Bengal from any sentence or order passed in any Criminal trial before the Courts of original Criminal jurisdiction which may be constituted by one or more Judges of the said High Court. Court may reserve points of law.-But it shall be at the discretion of any such Court to reserve any point or points of law for the opinion of the said High Court. 26. High Court to review on certificate of the Advocate-General.- And We do further ordain that, on such point or points of law being so reserved as aforesaid, or on its being certified by the said Advocate- General that, in his judgment, there is an error in the decision of a point or points of law decided by the Court ot original Criminal jurisdiction, or that a point or points of law which has or have been decided by the said Court should be further considered, the said High Court shall have full power and authority to review the case, or such part of it as may be necessary, and finally determine such point or points of law, and thereupon to alter the sentence passed by the Court of original jurisdiction, and to pass such judgment and sentence as to the said High Court shall seem right. 27. 27. Appeal from Criminal Courts in the Provinces.- And We do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at the Fort William in Bengal shall be a Court of appeal from the Criminal Courts of the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort William, and from all other Courts, whether within or without the said Bengal Division, from which there is now an appeal to the Court of Sudder Nizamut Adalut at Calcutta, and shall exercise appellate jurisdiction in such cases as are subject to appeal to the said Court of Sudder Nizamut Adalut, by virtue of any laws or regulations now in force, or shall become subject to appeal in the said High Court by virtue of such laws or regulations relating to Criminal Procedure as shall be hereafter made by the Governor-General in Council. 28. Hearing of referred cases and revision of Criminal trials.- And We do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at lort William 16 / 30 in Bengal shall be a Court of reference and revision from the Criminal Courts subjret to its appellate jurisdiction, and shall have power to hear and determine all such cases referred to it by the Session Judges, or by any other Officers authorized to refer cases to the Sudder Nizamut Adalut, and to revise all such cases tried by any Officer or Court possessing Criminal jurisdiction as are now subject to reference to, or revision by, the said Court of Sudder Nizamut Adalut, whether within or without the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort William, or shall become subject, to such reference to, or revision by, the said High Court by virtue of such laws or regulations relating to Criminal Procedure as shall be hereafter made by the Governor-General in Council. 29. High Court may direct the transfer of a case from one Court to another.- And We do further ordain that the said High Court shall have power to direct the transfer of any Criminal case or appeal from any Court to any other Court of equal or superior jurisdiction, and also to direct the preliminary investigation or trial of any Criminal case by any Office or Court otherwise competent to investigate or try it, though such belongs, in ordinary course, to the jurisdiction of some other Officer or Court. Criminal Law. 30. Criminal Law. 30. Offenders to be punished under Indian Penal Code.- And We do further ordain that all persons brought for trial before the said High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, either in the exercise of its original judictiou or in the exercise of its jurisdiction as a Court of appeal, reference, or revision, charged with any offence for which provision is made by Act No. XLV. of 1860, called the "Indian Penal Code" shall be liable to punishment under the said Act, and not otherwise, subject nevertheless to such alterations, modifications, and additions in and to such Code as may have been or may be prescribed by any acts or regulations made by the Governor-General in Council. 20. Evidently, none of the limbs of the aforesaid clauses of the Letters Patent that define the boundaries of the criminal jurisdiction of this 17 / 30 Court under Letters Patent, have been invoked and none gets attracted in the facts of the present case. The Single Judge has neither been called upon to adjudicate upon any point of penal law, nor evaluate any evidence, nor determine statutory bail conditions nor pass an order that may lead to initiation of a criminal proceeding nor an order that may lead to termination thereof. 21. In the present case, the Writ Petitioner has explicitly chosen not to invoke the criminal jurisdiction of this Court (Single Judge Bench). Admittedly, there is no prayer for the quashing of the FIR, no prayer for the staying of the investigation, and no prayer for statutory bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Paragraph 32 of the Writ Petition and one of the grounds mentioned in support of the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition, read as under : 32. Being aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the acts of the Police Respondents in removing the petitioner from his hotel room without a memo of arrest, holding him in custody at places and times that no record shows, and pressing him to withdraw his candidature under threat of arrest, the Petitioner begs to move this Hon’ble Court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia on the following amongst other, grounds: XII. FOR THAT protection till the counting is necessary and harms no one. The cases are nineteen years old. A few weeks more will not 18 / 30 prejudice the prosecution, and the State is free to proceed once the votes are counted on October 9, 2026. Fresh arrests or shown arrests in the meantime would carry the Petitioner’s custody past October 3, 2026, through the last days of the campaign and the poll. The Petitioner asks the Court to only hold the ring. He does not seek quashing of any case. Bail and the merits of each case are for the courts concerned. 22. Thus the sole causa causans for the Writ Petition is the conduct of the By-Election and the protection of the Writ Petitioner’s statutory right to contest elections without purported colourable executive indulgence. The subject matter is, thus, at best as regards the purity of the democratic process, which is a classic domain of Constitutional Equity and Public Law and no facet of criminal jurisdiction is involved in it. 23. The case pertains to the invocation of the jurisdiction of a Court of equity under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the issue before the Court was one related to balancing the State’s interest in governance and the Writ Petitioner’s interest in canvassing his candidature in the by-election. Such issue did not require the Court to form any opinion, either on the merits of the criminal case or the truth or falsity of the accusation levelled against the Writ Petitioner or the weight of evidence, or the determination of criminal guilt. 19 / 30 24. The impugned order neither determines any penal liability, nor speaks about the same even in the passing. The order merely operates as a temporary, time-bound deferral of state action in exercise of its highly prerogative Writ Jurisdiction and not criminal jurisdiction. In view of the above, we do not find that the law laid down in Ram Kishan Fauji (supra) would render the intra-court Appeal untenable. 25. Our view is supported by the view of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Director General of Police v. Gopal Kumar Agarwal, reported at 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 755, wherein the issue pertaining to the maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji (supra, was considered and decided thus: 14. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the Learned Senior Counsel for the respective parties on the point of maintainability of these two intra court appeals. The short question is whether or not the Learned Single Judge passed the impugned order in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. 15. In the present case, a criminal case was instituted on the complaint of the writ petitioner (who is the respondent No. 1 in MAT 318 of 2019 and hereinafter referred to as ‘Gopal’) against the appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘Manoj’) in MAT 353, of 20 / 30 2019. Criminal investigation started. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the manner in which the investigation was proceeding, Gopal approached the Learned Single Judge by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for change of the investigating agency. According to him, the investigation was being done in a biased manner to protect Manoj for the reasons alleged by him in the writ petition. The Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there was substance in Gopal's contention and accordingly directed substitution of CBI as the Investigating Authority in the place and stead of CED. 16. In his writ petition, Gopal did not pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings and naturally so because he is the de-facto complainant. Nor did Gopal pray for an order for initiation of a criminal proceeding since the criminal proceeding already stood initiated. The order of the Learned Single Judge which is impugned before us neither had the effect of causing initiation of a criminal proceeding nor had the effect of quashing or terminating a criminal proceeding. The Learned Judge was of the view that the investigation was not being conducted in a proper manner and accordingly directed change of the investigating agency. This, in our considered opinion, did not amount to exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the Learned Single Judge. 1 7. Criminal jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court has been defined in Clauses 22 to 29 of the Letters Patent, 1865 which have been 21 / 30 adverted to above. On a careful analysis and consideration of the said clauses, it cannot be said that the Learned Single Judge passed the impugned order in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. Further, on the day the Learned Judge passed the impugned order, His Lordship did not have determination to hear or decide a case in criminal jurisdiction. In our opinion, the Learned Judge exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in directing change of the investigating agency. The criminal investigation was already in progress. The investigation was not initiated as a result of the impugned order. .......................... .......................... 22. The facts in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji (supra) are different from the facts in the present case. In that case the Learned Single Judge's order had a consequence which was clearly criminal in nature.The Learned Single Judge opined that the recommendation of the Lokayukta for registration of FIR against Ram Kishan Fauji deserved to be quashed and accordingly quashed the same and also quashed all actions taken pursuant to such recommendation including the FIR. This led to the termination of the criminal proceeding. In the present case, the impugned order of the Learned Single Judge does not have any such consequence. Neither the impugned order was the reason for initiation of criminal proceeding nor for termination of any criminal proceeding. In our view, the Learned Single Judge merely upheld the civil right of the writ petitioner (Gopal) to have 22 / 30 a fair and impartial investigation conducted in connection with the alleged unnatural death of his sister, as was claimed by him. No point of criminal law was decided by the Learned Single Judge. The impugned order cannot be said to have been passed in criminal domain. We are in respectful agreement with the ratio decidendi of the decisions of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court and the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court which were approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji (supra), as mentioned above. Reading the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji (Supra) as a whole, we cannot accept the contention of Learned Senior Counsel representing Gopal (writ petitioner) that if the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution passes an order which has even the remotest connection with a criminal case, then the order must be said to have been passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the order by itself does not have any criminal consequence in the sense that it neither directs initiation of a criminal proceeding which may have penal consequences for the accused person, nor it directs quashing or termination of a criminal proceeding thereby relieving the accused person of possible penal consequences. In our considered view, the decision in Ram Kishan Fauji (supra) does not advance the case of the writ petitioner on the point of maintainability of these appeals. 23 / 30 23. In this connection it may also be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Fauji (supra) at Paragraph 42 of the Judgment observed, inter alia, that: “The tenability of intra- court appeal will depend upon the Bench adjudicating the lis as to how it understands and appreciates the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for the same.” In our understanding, in the facts of the present case, the Learned Single Judge was exercising civil jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and not criminal jurisdiction. 28. For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the present appeals are maintainable and not barred by Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865.” [Emphasis supplied] 26. It is pertinent to note that the other reason given by the Division Bench in paragraph 17 of the judgment rendered in Gopal Kumar Agarwal (supra), to the effect that “His Lordship did not have determination to hear or decide a case in criminal jurisdiction”, is also relevant for the present purpose. In this case too, the learned Single Judge did not have determination over matters pertaining to criminal jurisdiction as the roster therefor was with the other Learned Judges of this Court. It is well settled that if an order is passed by a Court without having determination over the matter, such an order would be void and a nullity in terms of the following observations of the Hon’ble 24 / 30 Supreme Court in the case of Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd. v. GRSE Ltd. Workmens Union reported at 2025 SCC OnLine SC 582: 9. In the light of the law laid down by the High Court itself in Sohan Lal Baid v. State of West Bengal, as approved by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand which has subsequently been approved by a Constitution Bench in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India, as well as Rule 26 (supra), we hold that any order which a bench - comprising of two judges or a single judge - may choose to make in a case that is not placed before them/him by the Chief Justice of the High Court or in accordance with His Lordship's directions, such an order is without jurisdiction. In other words, an adjudication, beyond allocation, is void and such adjudication has to be considered a nullity. It needs no emphasis that the Chief Justice of the High Court, being the primus inter pares, has been vested with the power and authority to set the roster, as articulated in Sohan Lal Baid (supra), and such roster is final and binding on all the ‘Companion Justices’ of the said court. Plainly, therefore, the order dated March 11, 2024 and the impugned order are without jurisdiction. [Emphasis supplied] 27. A little later, another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suparna Kanjilal Chakraborty v. Suvendu Adhikari reported at 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 4357 answered the question regarding maintainability of a Letters Patent appeal in the negative, while noticing Gopal Kumar Agarwal (supra). However, we need not be detained by the decision in Suparna 25 / 30 Kanjilalbe Chakraborty (supra) as the same is clearly distinguishable on facts. 28. In the said case, the learned Single Judge, whose order was impugned before the Division Bench, after referring to the factual details of the various criminal cases launched against the Writ Petitioner, had summed up the reliefs prayed for, thus: “In the factual background above, the petitioner seeks quashing of all the FIRs. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner has no faith in the State police any further and sought transfer of such investigation in the above 6 cases against him to the CBI” 29. The Division Bench, while dealing with the Appeal made the following observations in the light of the observations made by the learned Single Bench: 2. The Writ Petitioner in WPA 11803 of 2021, i.e. the Writ petition on which the common order dated 6 September, 2021 of the Hon'ble Single Bench came to be passed, is the Respondent No. 1 in two of the above noted analogous appeals being MAT 993 of 2021 and MAT 970 of 2021 (respectively MAT-I and MAT-II). The writ petitioner is a political leader presently owing allegiance to a political party which is in opposition to the present ruling party of the State. The writ petitioner originally owed allegiance to the present ruling party and, inter alia, alleges that upon shifting his allegiance to the party presently in the opposition, at least six First Information Reports (FIRs) have been filed against him in four 26 / 30 different police stations of the State. The writ petitioner alleges victimization and harassment by the State machinery as a counterblast to the change in his political allegiance. The prayers in the writ petition are primarily protection from the vexatious criminal proceedings launched against the Writ petitioner and, in the alternative, since the writ petition has lost faith in the impartiality of the State machinery, to transfer investigation of the FIRs registered against him to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 3. By the order impugned, the Hon'ble Single Bench was pleased to notice and record the details of the FIRs pleaded in the writ petition. Upon recording the details, the Hon'ble Single Bench found the writ petition to be maintainable and, was prima facie satisfied that in the series of FIRs complained of in the writ petition, the State machinery acted over-zeal-ously and maliciously. Upon further recording of reasons for its prima facie satisfaction, the Hon'ble Single Bench was pleased to observe that the writ petitioner deserves invocation of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for protecting him from implication in false criminal cases. [Emphasis supplied] 30. Thus, in the said case the very basis of the criminal cases were questioned and the Court had prima facie adjudicated on the same, which led to exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge, which is not 27 / 30 the case before us. It was in such background that the learned Division Bench concluded thus: A)That the primary reliefs granted by the Hon'ble Single Bench pertain to the exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction; B) That the alternate relief of transfer of investigation to the CBI has not been considered on merits at this stage by the Hon'ble Single Bench; C) That the ratio of in re: Ram Kishan Fauji applies apropo the facts of this case. D) That the Letters Patent of the High Court at Calcutta hence act as a bar to filing an intra-Court appeal. E) That the ratio of in re: Gopal Kumar Agarwal rests on the point of grant of the relief of transfer of investigation and, such relief being alternate and not under consideration by the impugned order, is hence not apropo the present factual scenario. F) This Court has considered the demurrer on the touchstone of the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the Hon'ble Single Bench and, not on the composition of the Hon'ble Single Bench sitting in Article 226 jurisdiction, by following the law laid down in re: Ram Kishan Fauji. 31. We are also cognisant of the fact that a reference as regards maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal against an order passed by a Learned Single Judge in relation to a notice issued under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C, is pending before a Special Bench of this Court. But then, the question that has been referred to be decided does not affect the consideration of the 28 / 30 present appeal. To be precise, the question that is pending consideration in the reference is - “Whether an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against an order passed in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to a notice issued under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to be regarded as an order passed in exercise of the criminal jurisdiction or depends upon the nature of the order ultimately passed in a proceeding as indicated in Gopal Kumar Agarwal and Another (supra)”. 32. Thus, in the backdrop of the settled position of law, we find from the pleadings as well as the submissions of the Learned Counsel across the Bar, that the Petitioner had prayed before the Learned Single Judge that he should not be treated as being shown to be arrested since he wanted to contest the election and he was under a threat of withdrawal of his nomination. The Learned Single Judge expressed ‘surprise’ while noting that the criminal prosecution was of 2007 and the Investigating Officer had “made a prayer for treating the petitioner as “shown arrest” before the Court below on 19.09.2026”. Apparently, the learned Single Judge lost sight of the fact that 06 cases punishable under section 302 of the IPC were withdrawn by the State Government and it was the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court, that quashed the said decision and restored the FIRs. 29 / 30 33. We fail to understand as to under which provision of the Criminal Procedure Code or Criminal Jurisprudence, did the Learned Single Judge exercise an authority to observe that the Petitioner could not be treated as arrested. In four out of six offences, the Petitioner is already before the appropriate forum for seeking regular bail. There is no impediment to approach the appropriate Court for seeking bail in a matter in which he has been shown to be arrested by tagging the said case with the earlier FIR. 34. In the light of the above, in a matter wherein there has been no prayer for bail, there has been no prayer for quashing of the FIR, there has been no prayer of staying of the investigation which was pressed on 24.09.2026, and in the backdrop of the statement made by the State before the Learned Single Judge that it is only in five cases that the Petitioner is arrested and is not to be arrested in any other matter, for the present, there could be no occasion for the Learned Single Judge to pass the impugned order. The Petitioner is behind the bars. If he succeeds in law to get bail, in view that the bail Petitions pending before the appropriate Court, it would be his right to be set at liberty, if such an order is passed. 30 / 30 35. In view of the above, this Appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge, is quashed and set aside. It be noted that having regard to the scope of the present intra-court appeal, this order is restricted to the directions issued by the Learned Single Judge in paragraph 7 and 8 of the impugned order reproduced above. 35. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, CAN 1 of 2026 stands also disposed off. (Om Narayan Rai, J.) (Ravindra V. Ghuge) Chief Justice