Letters Patent Appeal maintainability turns on the real nature of proceedings, not the writ label, when criminal prosecution is affected.

The maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal depends on the true nature of the proceeding and the relief sought, not on the label of the writ petition. Where a challenge under Article 226 seeks to annul a recommendation and the consequential FIR, and the direct effect is to prevent or continue criminal investigation or prosecution, the matter falls within criminal jurisdiction. Because Clause 10 of the Letters Patent excludes judgments rendered in exercise of criminal jurisdiction, no intra-court appeal lies in such a case. Authorities concerning civil rights and other writ contexts were distinguished as inapplicable on those facts, and the appeal was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable against the Single Judge's order quashing the Lokayukta's recommendation and the consequential FIR, having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised and the nature of the proceeding.

Analysis: The decisive test was held to be the true nature of the proceeding and the relief sought, not the mere nomenclature of the writ petition or the form in which the challenge was framed. A proceeding that seeks to avoid or annul criminal investigation and prosecution, even if presented under Article 226 and directed against the order of a statutory/quasi-judicial authority, partakes of criminal jurisdiction when its direct consequence is the launch or continuation of criminal proceedings. Since Clause 10 of the Letters Patent excludes judgments rendered in exercise of criminal jurisdiction, no intra-court appeal lies in such a case. The Court also distinguished authorities dealing with civil rights, supervisory jurisdiction, and other writ contexts, holding them inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable and the Division Bench order entertaining it was unsustainable.

---