AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Letters Patent Appeal, which has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, assailing the order dated 13.07.2026 passed in Crl.O.P.No.18269 of 2026, was numbered and listed under the caption “For Maintainability”.
We heard the appellant, appearing in person, at length and considered the materials available on record.
At the outset, we find that the Letters Patent Appeal has been filed with six pages of handwritten grounds dated 25.08.2026, along with an index to the typed set of papers. The complaints and most of the documents enclosed in the typed set of papers are also handwritten. We find that the learned Single Judge, in order dated 13.07.2026, had also recorded that most of the documents annexed to the typed set of papers, including the petition itself, were handwritten and not typed. However, considering the extraordinary circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge had accepted the handwritten petition. In the instant appeal also, as referred above, the grounds of the appeal and most of the documents are handwritten and not typed. However, accepting the same, we proceed to consider the other issues.
The appellant/party-in-person is a practising advocate of this Court. The entire issue stems from a complaint raised by him on 28.12.2015, and alleging that no action was taken on his complaint, he preferred W.P.No.9646 of 2016. Even at that juncture, there were several issues regarding the numbering of the writ petition. However, the learned Single Judge considered the writ petition on merits and by order dated 03.10.2016 dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits. The observations and conclusions made by the learned Single Judge, which capture the entire picture, are extracted hereunder:
“7.This Court carefully perused the 14 page representation that has been given by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Police, wherein he has made allegations against the following persons:
1.Judicial Officer
2.Mr.Vidyapathy, Advocate
3.Joint Commissioner of South Zone, now Additional Commissioner of Police Head Quarters.
4.Joint Commissioner of Police - South Zone
5.Deputy Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar District
6.Then DC of T.Nagar Dt now DC of DGP office
7.AC - Vadapalani Range
He further contended that he had given a sworn affidavit to the Registrar General of this Court against the Judicial Officer, based on which he wants the police to register a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the Judicial Officer. He has also prayed for protection to his life and property from Mr.Vidyapathy, Advocate.
8.The sum and substance of the petitioner's contention is that he had made a complaint against a Judicial Officer, on account of which the local police is not interfering to resolve his dispute with his neighbour, who is said to be releasing noxious air and vitiating the atmosphere.
9.In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat [(1991) 4 SCC 406], the Supreme Court has clearly held that an FIR against a Judicial Officer can be registered only after clearance by the High Court and that police cannot suo motu register an FIR. Without understanding this basic legal principle, the petitioner is harping upon the failure of the police to register an FIR against the Judicial Officer.
10.As regards the petitioner's allegation against his neighbour and Mr.Vidyapathy, the representation does not even disclose the name of his neighbour. That apart, the representation dated 28.12.2015 does not even disclose the commission of a cognizable offence for the police to register an FIR and instead, it proceeds to baselessly malign a Judge of this Court, a Judge of the subordinate Court, Senior Police Officers and an Advocate, for no good reason, for which this Court can initiate contempt action against the petitioner. But this Court does not want to resort to such extreme step.
11.Mr.Diwakar addressed this Court unabated without a pause for half an hour with sound and fury minus substance. This Court is of the perception that Mr.Diwakar is undergoing some miseries and sufferings internally and his external aggression is nothing, but a manifestation of his internal disturbance. Mr.Diwakar is seeing ghost in every shadow and in the opinion of this Court, he requires counselling by an expert and not harsh treatment. This Court profusely sympathises with him.
In the result, this petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs.”
The aggrieved appellant/party-in-person filed an appeal in W.A.SR.No.76425 of 2016. Since the appellant arrayed the Registrar General of this Court and the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry as party respondents in the appeal, who were not parties in the writ petition, the appeals were posted for maintainability. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considered the issues and, by order dated 21.09.2017, held that the Registrar General of this Court and the Secretary of Bar Council were not necessary parties. Consequently, this Court ordered for their deletion from the array of respondents and directed the Registry to number the writ appeal. Subsequently, the writ appeal was numbered and taken on file as W.A.No.525 of 2018.
Another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considered the appeal and, by judgment dated 27.04.2022, dismissed the writ appeal, holding that the appellant/party-in-person has to ventilate his grievances before the authorities concerned and without exhausting the alternate remedy, the writ petition filed was not maintainable. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“2.We have heard Mr.S.Diwakar appearing in person before us. When the appellant expresses a grievance that his neighbours are disturbing the environment by causing air pollution and creating public nuisance, nowhere he has mentioned when such air pollution and public nuisance have been caused to him. Secondly, when he made an allegation against the then Judicial Officer of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court. Saidapet, Chennai, what was the allegation and the complaint made against the said Judicial Officer also have not been disclosed. Moreover, when the party in person claims that his neighbours are disturbing him by creating public nuisance and the complaint given by him under Section 154 Cr.P.C., before the jurisdictional police concerned has not been registered, as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409, he should have approached the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate ate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation. The Apex Court, in the aforementioned judgment, further observed as follows:-
“26.If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?
27.As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.”
3.……...
4.In the light of the settled ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, in the case on hand, we are of the considered view that no steps have been shown to be taken by the appellant/party in person to ventilate his grievance before the authorities concerned and without exhausting the alternative remedy available under the law, he has come to this Court by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is certainly not maintainable. Besides, we do not find any merit on the submissions made by the party in person to call for interference with the order passed by the learned single Judge and we also do not find any error or illegality in the order of the learned single Judge. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.”
In view of the order passed by the Division Bench dated 27.04.2022 in W.A.No.526 of 2018, the appellant ought to have taken recourse to the procedure contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code by availing alternate remedy. Instead, the appellant filed Crl.O.P.No.18269 of 2026 under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking a direction to the respondent/Police to register a complaint dated 14.06.2026 by giving effect to the judgment dated 21.09.2017 in W.A.SR.No.76425 of 2016.
We find that after the order was passed in W.A.SR.No.76425 of 2016 on 21.09.2017, the writ appeal was numbered and subsequently dismissed by this Court on 27.04.2022, as extracted above. However, it appears that the appellant had not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge the order passed in writ appeal, but only sought registration of the case, relying on the order passed in W.A.SR.No.76425 of 2016 dated 21.09.2017. The learned Single Judge by order dated 13.07.2026 finding that no such direction as projected by the appellant was passed by the Division Bench in judgment dated 21.09.2017 and by holding that the course open to the appellant is to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others1, disposed of the Crl.OP relegating the appellant to approach the competent Court of jurisdiction by way of a private complaint if no action is taken on his complaint.
In fact, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Crl.OP in terms of the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, where the writ appeal filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“8.Thus, the said judgment does not in any manner go contrary to the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in G.Prabhakaran’s case (stated supra). Therefore, if no action has been taken on the complaint of the petitioner, the further course open to the petitioner is categorically delineated by the Division Bench in G.Prabhakaran (cited supra) to make further representation to the superior authorities which also the petitioner has made in the instant case. Even if no action has been taken, it will be very much open to the petitioner to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction by way of a private complaint and this Court cannot entertain the prayer that is made.
9.Keeping open the liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court by way of a private complaint, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.”
At this point, the appellant has come up with the present Letters Patent Appeal assailing the order of the learned Single judge dated 13.07.2026 in Crl.O.P.No.18269 of 2026. On the face of it, the present appeal filed under the Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Crl.O.P. exercising criminal jurisdiction is not maintainable.
At this juncture, it is useful to extract the Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, which reads as follows:
“15.Appeal from the Courts of Original Jurisdiction to the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction. - And We do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Madras 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 108 of the Government of India Act, and that notwithstanding anything herein before 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 Sec. 108 of the Government of India Act made (on or after the 1st day of February, 1929), 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 of Successors in Our or Their Privy Council as hereinafter provided.”
Interpreting an identical provision, the Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana2, held that no appeal under Letters Patent lies against an order passed by the Single Judge in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. Paragraph 18 of the said decision reads thus:
“18.On a plain reading of the aforesaid clause of the Letters Patent, it is manifest that no appeal lies against the order passed by the Single Judge in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. ………..”
In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the appellant invoked criminal jurisdiction. In the Crl.O.P. filed, the appellant sought registration of an FIR based on his complaint to set the criminal law in motion. An order passed in Crl.OP is not appealable before this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In the criminal original petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the order was passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction and any appeal assailing an order passed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would lie only before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
In view of the above, the present Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant is clearly not maintainable. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.