If the petitioner is still aggrieved, it is for him to approach the competent authority seeking redressal of his grievances. Resultantly, the writ petition SR is rejected. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.No.SR 138818 of 2025
Aditya Singh @ Aditya Singh Kapur
Son of Kapur Singh
Operating from Level 3B, The DLF Centre
Sansad Marg, Connaught Place
New Delhi – 110 001. .. Petitioner Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Directorate of Prosecution
Directorate of Prosecution No.5, Kamaraj Salai Chennai – 600 005.
3. The Director General of Police Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
4. The Commissioner of Police
Tambaram Commissionerate
Elcot SEZ, Karappakkam
Sholinganallur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 119.
5. S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
Madras High Court, Court Hall (51)
Madras High Court Government Advocate Building George Town, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 104.
6. The Inspector of Police
T-14, Pallikaranai Police Station
4/908, Cheran Street, Ambedkar Nagar
Jalladianpet, Medavakkam Chennai – 600 100. .. Respondents
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to initiate appropriate action against 5th and 6th respondents responsible for the false submission in Crl.O.P.No.29357 of 2024 and consequentially frame guidelines to prevent recurrence of such suppression.
For Petitioner : Mr.Aditya Singh @
Aditya Singh Kapur
[Party-in-Person]
For Respondents : Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate for 1st respondent
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice)
Seeking invocation of public interest jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition is filed to enjoin respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take action against respondent Nos.5 and 6 for the false submission made by them during the course of the judicial proceedings in Crl.O.P.No.29357 of 2024 before this Court; and to frame guidelines to prevent recurrence of such suppression.
2. The facts, which are necessitous to be adumbrated, are as under:
2.1. On the allegation that the petitioner herein reneged on the promise of payment of amount in terms of the agreement entered into with one Sankar Dhayalan, FIR No.487 of 2024 was registered against the petitioner.
2.2. The petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.29357 of 2024 before this court to quash the said FIR. By order dated 7.1.2025, the said petition was dismissed in the light of the submission made by learned Additional Public Prosecutor/fifth respondent herein that after completion of investigation in Crime No.487 of 2024, charge sheet was filed through e-filing on 1.12.2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Alandur.
2.3. It is averred that, when the petitioner applied for certified copy of the said charge-sheet, it was returned by the Registry with an endorsement dated 25.1.2025 to the effect that “no chargesheet had been filed”. This contradiction between the submission made by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the court and the facts on record, according to the petitioner, is gross abuse of the authority of the office of the Public Prosecutor and the Police.
2.4. The asseverations in the affidavit are to the effect that the misrepresentation by respondent Nos.5 and 6 led to wrongful dismissal of his statutory remedy before this Court and, hence, he has filed this public interest litigation to preserve the sanctity of administration of justice and to ensure that no litigant suffers due to misuse of prosecutorial power.
3. A bare perusal of the averments makes it luculent that the petitioner is embittered by the submission made by the fifth respondent during the course of hearing of Crl.O.P.No.29357 of 2024 that the charge sheet has been filed, which formed the basis to dismiss the said petition seeking quashment of the FIR.
4. It is beyond any cavil that the said order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.29357 of 2024 is appealable.
5. That apart, if the petitioner has any whit of material to substantiate his submission of misrepresentation made by respondent Nos.5 and 6 before the learned Single Judge, he has an effective remedy under the provisions of the Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Without availing such effective statutory remedy, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, that too, by filing a public interest litigation is utterly misconceived. It should be iterated here that public interest litigation is not a panacea for all wrongs.
6. The primordial relief sought is to take action againstrespondent Nos.5 and 6 for the false submission in
Crl.O.P.No.29357 of 2024. That, by no stretch of imagination, can be in public interest and is certainly a ruse to ventilate his personal cause.
7. The concept of “public interest litigation” was evolved predominantly to enable persons espouse the cause of others, that too, when the persons aggrieved are unable to approach the Court directly by reasons of abject poverty or lack of means or being socially disadvantaged and backward. Such august forum cannot be allowed to be reduced to an arena for settling private scores.
8. Though the petitioner asserted that in some other case also the accused therein was convicted on the basis of a similar submission made by the Public Prosecutor and the Police, the aggrieved person is not before this court and, barring mere averment, there is no iota of material in support thereof.
9. Qua the omnibus prayer made for formulation of guidelinesto prevent recurrence of such suppression, it is made clear that there are statutory provisions in place and, moreover, framing of guidelines falls within the governmental fiefdom.
10. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, it is for him to approach the competent authority seeking redressal of his grievances.
Resultantly, the writ petition SR is rejected.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
28.10.2025
Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl/sasi
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government Home Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Directorate of Prosecution
Directorate of Prosecution
No.5, Kamaraj Salai, Chennai 600 005.
3. The Director General of Police Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
4. The Commissioner of Police
Tambaram Commissionerate
Elcot SEZ, Karappakkam, Sholinganallur Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 119.
5. The Inspector of Police
T-14, Pallikaranai Police Station 4/908, Cheran Street, Ambedkar Nagar
Jalladianpet, Medavakkam, Chennai 600 100.
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(kpl/sasi)
W.P.No.SR 138818 of 2025

28.10.2025