ORDER : (S.K. Mishra, J.) 1. The simple question in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether an intracourt appeal shall lie from a judgment/order passed by learned Single Judge in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Rules of Patna High Court reads as follows: - “10. Appeal 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 Patna 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 the 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.” 2. In interpreting the said provision, the Full Bench of Orissa High Court in the case of Sri Kasinath Nayak versus State of Odisha & Others reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Ori 452 has come to the conclusion that a criminal proceeding on the other hand is ordinarily one in which if carried to its conclusion it may result in the imposition of sentences such as death, imprisonment, fine or forfeiture of property. It also includes proceedings in which in the larger interest of the State, orders to prevent apprehended breach of the peace, orders to bind down persons who are danger to the maintenance of peace and order, or orders aimed at preventing vagrancy are contemplated to be passed. 3. In that case, the Full Bench of Orissa High Court was considering the rejection of an application registered as W.P.(Crl.) praying for further investigation of offences involving Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Full Bench of Orissa High Court had taken into consideration the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.L. Narayan Row versus Ishwarlal Bhagwandas reported in AIR 1965 SC 1818 , which was later on followed by High Court of Judicature at Gujarat in Sanjeev Rajendrabhai Bhatt versus State of Gujarat reported in 1999 Cr.L.J. 338. The Full Bench of the Orissa High Court with approval quoted the observations made by the Gujarat High Court, which read as under: “80. In our considered opinion, in the instant case, the proceedings can be said to be criminal proceedings inasmuch as, carried to its conclusion, they may result into imprisonment, fine etc. as observed by the Supreme Court in Narayana Row. 81. From the totality of facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the learned single Judge has passed an order in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that we have already stated earlier that the proceedings were of a criminal nature. Whether a criminal Court takes cognizance of an offence or sends a complaint for investigation under Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 does not make difference so far as the nature of proceedings is concerned. Even if cognizance is not taken, that fact would not take out the case from the purview of criminal jurisdiction. Whether a criminal Court takes cognizance of an offence or sends a complaint for investigation under Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 does not make difference so far as the nature of proceedings is concerned. Even if cognizance is not taken, that fact would not take out the case from the purview of criminal jurisdiction. 82. In our judgment, a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution arising from an order passed or made by a Court in exercise or purported exercise of power under the Code of Criminal Procedure is still a ‘criminal proceeding’ within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. A proceeding seeking to avoid the consequences of a criminal proceeding initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure will continue to remain ‘criminal proceeding’ covered by the bracketed portion of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 83. As Clause 15 of the Letters Patent expressly bars an appeal against the order passed by a single Judge of the High Court in exercise of criminal jurisdiction, LPAs are not maintainable and deserve to be dismissed only on that ground. We accordingly hold that the Letters Patent Appeals are not maintainable at law and they are liable to be dismissed.” 4. Finally the Full Bench of the Orissa High Court at paragraph 15 has observed that from the above analysis of decisions of Apex Court and other High Court, the Orissa High Court arrived at the conclusion that the question, whether an order passed by learned Single Judge in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a proceeding under civil jurisdiction or criminal jurisdiction, can be determined by taking into consideration the nature of proceeding. That means, if the relief asked for in a writ petition is against exercise of power under criminal law or the proceeding would be a criminal proceeding, or the proceeding if carried to its conclusion ultimately may result in sentence of death or imprisonment or fine or forfeiture of property, such writ petition should be treated as filed against a proceeding under criminal jurisdiction. In such a case, the Letters Patent Appeal/Writ Appeal is not maintainable. 5. In the present case, grievance of the petitioner, i.e., appellant before us, was that the investigating agency has not taken proper steps and the matter should be handed over to Special Cell. In such a case, the Letters Patent Appeal/Writ Appeal is not maintainable. 5. In the present case, grievance of the petitioner, i.e., appellant before us, was that the investigating agency has not taken proper steps and the matter should be handed over to Special Cell. If such order is passed and if the proceeding, if carried to logical conclusion, there is possibility of imposition of sentence of imprisonment or fine or forfeiture of property, thus, the proceeding is definitely a criminal proceeding. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Others versus Visan Kumar Shiv Charan Lal [Civil Appeal No.7134 of 2008] wherein it has been held that from a judgment passed by the Single Judge in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an appeal should lie to a Division Bench comprising of two Judges of the same High Court. From the background of the facts and from the observations made, it is apparent that the aforesaid case was not deciding whether Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against an order passed by the Single Judge in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. 7. In the case of Ram Kishan Fauji versus State of Haryana and Others reported in (2017) 5 SCC 533 the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering whether a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the order passed by learned Single Judge refusing to quash an FIR filed against the petitioner. After a detailed discussion of all the relevant precedents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that on a plain reading of Clause 10 of Letters Patent of Lahore High Court, which is pari materia to Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court, it is manifest that no appeal lies against an order passed by the Single Judge in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has further held that if the order made by a Single Judge is a judgment and if the appropriate legislature has, expressly or by necessary implication, not taken away a right of appeal, otherwise available under the applicable Letters Patent, an LPA shall be available. Till a competent legislature takes away the power of the Letters Patent, the same can be exercised by the High Court. Till a competent legislature takes away the power of the Letters Patent, the same can be exercised by the High Court. However, while exercising the power under the Letters Patent, it is imperative to see what is the nature of jurisdiction that has actually been provided in the Letters Patent. 8. It is not disputed at this stage and also it is trite law that appeal is always a creature of statute. Since Clause 10 does not provide for an appeal against an order passed by the Single Judge in exercise of criminal jurisdiction, this Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. Therefore, it is dismissed. 9. Grant urgent certified copies of this order as per the Rules.