(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge passed while exercising his criminal jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on a petition initiated by the appellant seeking quashing of FIR No.139 dated 24.05.2013 under Section 420 IPC as also a subsequent order dated 07.05.2014 declaring the appellant as a proclaimed offender.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant when confronted with the issue of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal against the said orders contended that since the impugned orders retaining his passport would affect his personal life and liberty, he would be entitled to invoke the Letters Patent jurisdiction in view of curtailment of his liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support his contention he has placed reliance on a judgment rendered on 21.3.2017 in Civil Appeal No.4288 of 2017 titled Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana and ors., Adishwar Jain v. Union of India and another 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 561, Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi and others 1967 AIR (SC) 1836 and A.G.Kazi and others v. C.V. Jethwani 1967 AIR (Bombay) 235.
(3.) All the aforesaid judgments emanate from an exercise of writ jurisdiction by the Single Judge whereupon subsequent proceedings were gone into. There would be no quarrel if the impugned orders had emanated likewise from the constitutional remedies available to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant would, however, contend that it is the nature of relief sought which would determine the course of the remedy available to an individual. Since his personal liberty has been curtailed by virtue of the impugned orders, the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India would straightway be attracted which would entitle him to avail the present remedy. He has referred to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Fauji's case (supra) which may be extracted herebelow :