S.Diwakar vs The Deputy Commissioner of Police

LPA No. 33 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
LPA No. 33 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012420082026}
S.Diwakar
S/o. M.Subramanian,
13/44, Tharachand Nagar,
rd
III Street, Virugambakkam,
Chennai-92.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Flower Bazaar Police District,
B-1, North Beach Police Station Campus,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patents Act, to call for the records pertaining to Crl.O.P.Nos.
18269 of 2026 and 21966 of 2026 that lies in this Court and by setting
aside the orders.
For Appellant(s): Mr.S.Diwakar
(Party-In-Person)
For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
__________
Page1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:26 pm )

LPA No. 33 of 2026
JUDGMENT
[Judgment was delivered by G.Arul Murugan J.]
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”.
2. We heard the appellant, appearing in person, at length and
considered the materials available on record.
3. 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
__________
Page2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:26 pm )

LPA No. 33 of 2026
documents are handwritten and not typed. However, accepting the same,
we proceed to consider the other issues.
4. 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
__________
Page3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:26 pm )

LPA No. 33 of 2026
Registrar General of this Court against the Judicial Officer, based on
which he wants the police to register a case under the P revention 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 D elhi 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
__________
Page4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:26 pm )

LPA No. 33 of 2026
sympathises with him.
In the result, this petition is devoid of merits and the same is
dismissed. No costs.”
5. 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.
6. 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:
__________
Page5 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:26 pm )

LPA No. 33 of 2026
“ 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
__________
Page6 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:26 pm )

LPA No. 33 of 2026
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. ……...
__________
Page7 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:26 pm )

LPA No. 33 of 2026
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.”
7. 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.
8. 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
__________
Page8 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:26 pm )

LPA No. 33 of 2026
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
1
Pradesh and Others , 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.
9. 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
1
(2012) 4 SCC 1
__________
Page9 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:26 pm )

LPA No. 33 of 2026
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.”
10. 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.
11. 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
__________
Page10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:26 pm )

LPA No. 33 of 2026
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.”
12. Interpreting an identical provision, the Supreme Court in Ram
2
Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana , 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:
2
(2017) 5 SCC 533
__________
Page11 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:26 pm )

LPA No. 33 of 2026
“ 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. ………..”
13. 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.
14. 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.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, C.J.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN J.)
13-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Jeni
__________
Page12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:26 pm )

LPA No. 33 of 2026
To
The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Flower Bazaar Police District,
B-1, North Beach Police Station Campus,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1.
__________
Page13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:26 pm )

LPA No. 33 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE.
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
Jeni
LPA No. 33 of 2026
13-10-2026
__________
Page14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:26 pm )