Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
S. Diwakar - Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner of Police Office of the Commissioner of Police Vepery, Chennai – Respondent
W.P. No. 9646 of 2016
Decided On : 03-10-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Diwakar
For the Respondent: Mr. C. Emalias
The need for complaints to disclose cognizable offenses for police intervention and the requirement of High Court clearance for registering an FIR against a judicial officer.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Writ Petition - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat [(1991) 4 SCC 406]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a practicing advocate, filed a writ petition alleging harassment by a neighbor and another advocate. He also made complaints against a judicial officer and sought police intervention. The court gave him uninterrupted hearing to present his grievances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's complaints lacked substance and were baseless. It noted that the petitioner's external aggression was a manifestation of internal disturbance and recommended counseling.
Issues: Allegations of harassment, complaints against a judicial officer, and seeking police intervention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that an FIR against a judicial officer can only be registered after clearance by the High Court, and police cannot suo motu register an FIR. It also highlighted the need for complaints to disclose cognizable offenses for police intervention.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, with no costs imposed.
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 28.12.2
