Skip to content


S. Diwakar Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P.No. 9646 of 2016
Judge
AppellantS. Diwakar
RespondentThe Commissioner of Police, Chennai
Excerpt:
.....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.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondent herein to perform his duty by taking action on the petitioner's complaint cum representation dated 28.12.2015 in accordance with law and in the verge of doing so also to take actions as against the officials stated in it and to provide him a security cover as there prevails a grave threat to his life and limb in the hands of the persons as stated in his complaint cum representation dated 28.12.2015 and also to pass orders permitting him to have and carry a device to protect himself against any acts caused harming him until the providence of the security cover.)

1. When this matter came up for hearing before R.Mala, J., on 21.03.2016, the following order was passed:

"Heard the party-in-person.

2. Registry is directed to call for explanation from the staff concerned, as to how the present petition came to be numbered when the same is not in a proper format and the said explanation is directed to be placed before this Court.

3. Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

4. For filing counter and for disposal, post the matter on 12.04.2016."

2. Pursuant to the said order, Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Appeal Examiner submitted his explanation dated 28.03.2016, which is as follows:

In obedience to the High Court's Official Memorandum cited, I humbly submit that the WP.SR.No.27586/2016 was transferred to me from Thiru.D.Dillikumar, Appeal Examiner, on 14.03.2016 since he was on long leave. On the said day, the Party-in-Person Thiru Diwakar asked me to pass the case immediately, but while going through the papers, I found many defects in the Writ Petition including the prayers. I told him that will make a return for complying with the defects. He raised his voice and started shouting at me and said everything is in order and hence it may be numbered. Since he was not convinced with my reply, he went to SAR (Writs) my immediate superior officer. She also tried to convince him and said that the Appeal Examiner will make a return, for which he immediately shouted at her by disturbing the entire section in front of all other advocates. Later she directed me to take him to Deputy Registrar (Writs) when I went to Deputy Registrar (Writs) Room to get instructions in this matter, he accompanied with me and behaved in the similar manner. Though, myself and Deputy Registrar and the other senior Appeal Examiners requested him to make certain modification in the Petition and Affidavit, he vehemently refused and shouted that he will not make any correction in the petition and affidavit. Further more, he refused to make any endorsement in this regard and also he has stated that there is a vast difference in the interpretation of Writ and Writ of Mandamus and the Registry cannot compel him to make correction in his petition. He has also opposed for returning the case papers and also for posting the case before the Hon'ble Court for maintainability.

In the above circumstances and also after discussion with my superiors I have passed the case and it is neither wilful nor wanton.

I further submit that I have been working in Writ AE Section for the past one year. So far I have been very careful while discharging my duties.

I wish to tender my unconditional apology and I regret for the inconvenience caused to the Hon'ble Court. I assure that such lapse will not occur again in future.

I humbly request that my explanation may kindly be accepted and I may be excused."

3. The above explanation is accepted and further action against Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Appeal Examiner, is dropped. If the petitioner misbehaves with the staff in the Registry, the concerned Officer is advised to send a written report to the Registrar-General, who in turn shall forward the complaint to the Tamil Nadu Bar Council for disciplinary action.

4. Mr.Diwakar, party-in-person made several special mentions before this Court to take his case and give him uninterrupted hearing for half an hour to lay threadbare his grievances.

5. Accepting his request, this Court gave him uninterrupted hearing from 4.15 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. on 01.09.2016. In his oral submission, Mr.Diwakar submitted that he is a practising Advocate; that he had constructed a house in Virugambakkam area; that his neighbour is annoying him on the instigation of Mr.Vidyapathy, Advocate and has been making his life miserable. In this regard, he had given several complaints to the local police, but of no avail. Totally exasperated with the lethargy shown by the local police in addressing his grievance, he gave a representation dated 28.12.2015 to the Commissioner of Police, on which no action has been taken and hence, he is before this Court.

6. Mr.Diwakar submitted that he had made a complaint against a Judicial Officer to the Registrar General and that is being put against him by the local police whenever he approaches them to redress his grievance against his neighbour and Mr.Vidyapathy. According to him, his neighbour living in plot no.44 has been vitiating the air and making the atmosphere noxious and thereby, making his life miserable. When he questioned, his neighbour sought the help of Mr.Vidyapathy, Advocate for legal help, and Mr.Vidyapathy is also causing annoyance to the petitioner.

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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //