Madras High Court
T.Gajendran vs The State Represented By on 26 August, 2022
Author: V.Sivagnanam
Bench: V.Sivagnanam
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 11.08.2022
Pronounced on 26.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.O.P (MD) No.13030 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.8285 of 2022
T.Gajendran ... Petitioner/Accused No.1
Vs.
1. The State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Idol Wing CID,
Kumbakonam,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No. 4 of 2017 originally registered at
Inspector of Police, Idol Wing CID,
Chennai) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Venkatraman ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in Crime No.4 of
2017, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Idol Wing CID,
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District (originally registered at Idol Wing CID,
Chennai) and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand
For R1 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.N.Ratheesh Ram
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the case in Crime No.4 of 2017, for the offences under Sections 457(2), 380(2) and 202 I.P.C., and subsequently, altered into Sections 457(2), 380(2), 201, 202, 403, 409, 468 r/w 120(B) I.P.C., and Section 25(1) of the Antiques & Art Treasures Act, 1972, by the respondent police based on the complaint given by the second respondent.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
The occurrence is stated to have been taken place on 13.09.2013 and the F.I.R came to be registered on 26.07.2017, in which, including the petitioner, totally 10 accused persons have been ranked as perpetrators. The crux of the F.I.R is that a temple called Arulmigu Pasupatheeswarar Sivan Temple and Adhikesava Perumal Temple are situated at Pandhanallur and the same have been in existence for the past 1500 years and the history says 2/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 that they were built by Chola Kings. The said temples are under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and there are so many movable and immovable properties belonged to the said temple. In the year of 2005, considering the safety of the idols available in the nearby temples, with a view to keep them in a single place under a direct monitor, the said Department has built a Strong Room in Nageswaraswamy Temple at Kumbakonam. As per the directives of the said Department, while at the time of moving the idols from the temple concerned to the Strong Room and at the time of getting back therefrom, necessary entries in the Official Register have to be made. Despite the said instructions, the idols which were being there in Arulmigu Pasupatheeswarar Temple have not been kept in the Strong Room. The third accused viz., Kamaraj when he was taking charge as Executive Officer in 2013, he found that the idol of Vinayagar, Pusphakarani, Valli, Theivanai, Chandrasekar Amman belonged to Arulmigu Vishwanatha Thirukovil and Vinayagar idol attached with Rengarajapuram Idumbeswarar temple were found to have been stolen. Despite knowing the same, he has informed to his Department that everything with regard to the number of idols and other properties are in 3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 order. He has also failed to give a police complaint in that connection. Though the said fact had been known by the petitioner who was the Joint Commissioner of said Department, Mayiladuthurai, he also has burked the same. Alleging that all the officials of the HR & CE Department who had been serving at the relevant point of time are vicariously responsible for the said theft, the second respondent lodged the complaint. Hence, the present petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is cited as first accused in Crime No.4 of 2017. The allegation in the FIR is that Arulmigu Pasupatheeswarar Sivan Temple is situated at Pandhanallur. The idols at Arulmigu Pasupatheeswarar Sivan Temple were not placed at Strong Room built in Nageswaraswamy Temple at Kumbakonam. In the year 2013, the third accused Kamaraj, was taking charge as Executive Officer in Arulmigu Pasupatheeswarar Sivan Temple, Pandhanallur. The idols belonging to Arulmigu Viswanatha Thirukovil, Keezhamanakudi viz., Vinayagar, Pusphakarani, Valli, Theivanai, Chandrasekar Amman, Astro Devar and another Vinayagar idol belonging to Rengarajapuram 4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 Idumbeswarar temple were missing. But he did not inform the missing of the above said idols to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. But, on 13.09.2013, while taking charge, he gave certificate that all idols are available and he did not give any complaint for missing of the above said six idols. At that time, the petitioner/Accused No.1 viz., T.Gajendran, was working as Joint Commissioner of said Department at Mayiladuthurai, having control over Arulmigu Pasupatheeswarar Sivan Temple, Pandhanallur and another Assistant Commissioner viz., Gnanasekaran, HR & CE Department at Kumbakonam is also having knowledge about the missing idols, but did not disclose the missing of the above said six idols and further alleged in the complaint that the persons responsible for the missing of idols, are: (1) T.Gajendran, Joint Commissioner, HR& CE Department, Mayiladuthurai, (2) Gnanasekaran, Assistant Commissioner, Kumbakonam, (3) Kamaraj, Executive Officer, Arulmigu Pasupatheeswarar Temple, Pandanallur, (4)Raja, S/o.Krishnadass, Head Clerk, Arulmigu Pasupatheeswarar Temple, (5) Pasupathi Pillai, Trustee, Shree Pasupatheeswarar Temple (6) Monohar Pillai, Trustee, Shree Pasupatheeswarar Temple, (7) Ramachandran, Previous Executive Officer 5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 (8) Saravanan, Computer Operator (9) Jagathesh Gurukkal at Pasupatheeswarar Temple, Pandanallur, (10) Sekar Kurukkal, Shree Pasupatheeswarar Temple and other temple staffs.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that admittedly, at the time of the alleged missing of idols, the petitioner was not serving as Joint Commissioner, Mayiladuthurai and his posing itself was on 10.08.2015, through G.O.No.112, issued by the HR & CE Department on 06.08.2015. After he joined as Joint Commissioner on 10.08.2015. The missing of idols was brought to his knowledge and he initiated enquiry proceedings in Na.Ka.11183/2016-A1, dated 10.01.2017 through which, he had summoned M.Kannapiran – Executive Officer (Retd), Mr.R.Arivazhagan – Executive Officer (Retd), A.Ramachandran- Executive Officer (Retd) and Mr.K.Kamaraj – Executive Officer served at that time. They were being examined on 27.01.2017 and their statements were duly recorded. On 11.04.2017 and 21.04.2017 also, they were being subjected by the examination. After the enquiry was over, on the basis of the documents, a detailed report has been prepared vide proceedings, dated 22.04.2017 and 6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 the same was forwarded before the Commissioner, HR & CE Department. In the report, it has been made clear that with regard to the ingress and egress of idols, there was no proper Register maintained. While one Ramachandran, Executive Officer, had taken charge, in the Stock Register, the availability of the said idols were found to have been mentioned whereas when Kamaraj, Executive Officer has come to the said post, while entrusting the existing idols, there has been no reference about the said idols. Thereafter, the Joint Commissioner directed the Executive Officer - Kamaraj to give a criminal complaint on 04.05.2017. In pursuance of that, a complaint was given to the Inspector of Police, Pandhanallur Police Station, Thanjavur District. On receiving the complaint, C.S.R.No.122 of 2017 was assigned by the police on 23.05.2017.
5. The second respondent/defacto complainant previously made a complaint before the Pandhanallur Police Station on 24.06.2017, with regard to missing of the above said six idols. The complaint was received and a case was registered in Crime No.121 of 2017. In that complaint, the defacto complainant has not stated any allegation against the petitioner/ first 7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 accused. Suppressing the above said complaint, the impugned case was registered in Crime No.4 of 2017 with new allegation and false allegation. Further, the second respondent/defacto complainant gave another complaint which was registered in Crime No.64 of 2018, on 03.04.2018. Thus, the petitioner/first accused was not the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE Department at Mayiladuthurai during the alleged period of theft in the year 2013. The petitioner is no way connected with missing of above said six idols belonging to Pasupatheeswarar Temple, Pandhanallur and no offence is made out against the petitioner by applying the dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors Vs Ch.Bhajan Lal And Ors reported in 1992 AIR 604, 1990 SCR supl.(3) 259 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs. State of Maharastra and Others reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 and he pleaded to quash the impugned FIR against this petitioner.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent filed counter and objected to quash the FIR. 8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022
7. The learned counsel further submitted that Pasupatheeswarar Temple, Pandhanallur was under the control of the petitioner/first accused. The investigation reveals that the accused persons viz., Kamaraj, Gnanasekar and Gajendran had knowledge about the missing of idols and they are accountable for the idols entrusted in their control. In spite of their knowledge of these offences, the accused Executive Officer, Tr.Kamaraj (HR& CE), Joint Commissioner, Tr.Gajendran (HR&CE), Executive Officer, Tr.Ramachandran (Rtd), (HR&CE), Assistant Commissioner, Tr.Gnanasekaran (HR& CE) had intentionally omitted to give specific information about the missing of idols. The offence of “Intentional omission” to give information about the offences, is a serious one. Further, the first accused/petitioner in this case had further replaced the original burgled metal idols of Manickavasagar and Astra Devar with a replica. The accused/petitioner herein had wilfully omitted the offence of forgery to the jurisdictional police with an intention to screen the original offenders responsible for the commission of theft of these antique idols. He further submitted that the petitioner herein in league with others had conspired and conjointly committed the offence of intentional omission to give 9/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 information in respect of the offences of dishonest misappropriation of some of the entrusted antique idols through the offence of criminal breach of trust and the offence of illegal smuggling and transportation of the stolen idols out of the temple and the offence of illegal sale of antique stolen idol. Since the investigation is pending, he objected to quash the FIR against the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent objected to the contention of the petitioner and pleaded to dismiss the petition as it has no merit.
9. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the records.
10. A perusal of the records reveals the following facts:
(i) In the impugned FIR in Crime No.4 of 2017, for the offences under Sections 457(2), 380(2) and 202 I.P.C., and subsequently, altered into Sections 457(2), 380(2), 201, 202, 403, 409, 468 r/w 120(B) I.P.C., and 10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 Section 25(1) of the Antiques & Art Treasures Act, 1972, dated 26.07.2017, totally ten accused and other temple staffs were cited as accused persons.
The petitioner is the Joint Commissioner, HR& CE, Mayiladuthurai and he is the first accused.
(ii) The complaint was given by one Venkatraman, S/o.Rajagopal, R.V.R Illam, Nos.1,2,3 Thirumalai Street, Jai Balaji Nagar, K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 78. He addressed the complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Idol Theft Wing, Guindy, Chennai.
(iii) The allegation in the complaint is that in Pandhanallur Village, Pasupatheeswarar Temple is situated wherein Panchaloga idols, Iympon Idols were not kept in the Strong Room built for the specific purpose. In the year 2013, the third accused Kamaraj, when he was taking charge as Executive Officer, while taking stock list of idols, he found that the idols belonging to Keezhamanakudi Viswanathaswamy temple viz., (1) Vinayagar idol, (2) Pushkarani idol, (3) Valli idol, (4) Deivanai idol, (5) Chandrasekara Amman idol and (6) Astra Devar were found missing and 11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 also the Vinayagar of Idumpeswarar temple, Sreerangarajapuram was burgled from Pasupatheeswarar Temple. Thus, he found missing of six idols and he did not disclose missing of the six idols, but he gave the certificate to the Commissioner that all idols are available and he did not give any complaint to the police about the missing of idols. Besides, the first accused viz., Gajendran, Joint Commissioner (HR&CE) Department, Mayiladuthurai and second accused viz., Gnanasekaran, Assistant Commissioner, (HR & CE) Department, Kumbakonam also screened the missing of idols. Therefore, the persons responsible for the missing of idols are listed as follows:
(1)T.Gajendran, Joint Commissioner, HR& CE Department, Mayiladudurai, (2) Gnanasekaran, Assistant Commissioner, Kumbakonam, (3) Kamaraj, Executive Officer, (4) Raja, S/o.Krishnadass, Head Clerk, Pasupatheeswarar Temple, (5) A.Pasupathi Pillai, Trustee, (6) B. Monohar Pillai, Trustee, (7) Ramachandran , Previous Executive Officer, 12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 (8) A.Saravanan, Computer Operator, Pasupatheeswarar Temple, (9) Jagathesh Gurukkal, previous temple Gurukkal (10) Sekar Kurukkal, Pasupatheeswarar Temple and other temple staffs those allegation.
11. Based on the complaint, the impugned FIR was registered on 26.07.2017 by the Idol Wing CID, Chennai. This FIR is challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds:
(i) On the alleged date of finding about the missing of six idols i.e., on 13.09.2013, the petitioner/first accused was not working as Joint Commissioner at Mayiladuthurai and he is not having knowledge about the missing of six idols and on that date, he has no control over the temple at the relevant period.
(ii) To support of his argument, the learned counsel placed the promotion order passed by the HR & CE Department on 08.07.2015. On perusal of the G.O.No.112, (HR& CE) Department, dated 06.08.2015, it is seen that the petitioner/first accused was promoted as Joint Commissioner as per the above G.O. In pursuance of the above G.O., he took charge as 13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 Joint Commissioner, Mayiladuthurai, on 10.08.2015. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the joining report of the petitioner as Joint Commissioner, Mayiladuthurai to the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Chennai, by its letter in Na.Ka.No.7702/2015/A2, dated 10.08.2015. From the above said Government Order and the joining report, it is seen that the petitioner joined as Joint Commissioner, Mayiladuthurai, on 10.08.2015 and this fact is not disputed by the prosecution.
(iii) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after joining the post as Joint Commissioner, it was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner about missing of six idols belonging to Pasupatheeswarar Temple, Pandhanallur and he conducted enquiry with regard to the missing of idols and examined the concerned persons with regard to missing of idols and also issued proceedings on 10.01.2017. In pursuance of the enquiry, he found that the then Executive Officer viz., Ramachandran during the relevant period, is now retired. At that time, the idols were not available. In this regard, he sent a report to the Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Chennai by his report in Na.Ka No.11183/2016/A1, dated 22.04.2017. The 14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 learned counsel further placed the enquiry conducted by the Commissioner (HR&CE) Department, the Commissioner conducted enquiry on 16.12.2019 and completed enquiry on 21.01.2020. At the time of enquiry, the petitioner was under suspension and the Commissioner framed two charges against this petitioner. The second charge is pertaining to the case registered against this petitioner in Crime No.4 of 2017. On enquiry, the Commissioner found that the petitioner viz., T.Gajendran, Joint Commissioner was not having control over the Pasupatheeswarar Temple, Pandhanallur and is not having any knowledge about the missing of six idols during the relevant period.
(iv) The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied upon the report of the Commissioner with regard to the fact that the petitioner was not having control over the Pasupatheeswarar Temple, Pandhanallur and not having knowledge about the missing of six idols during the relevant period.
So he is not having any duty to report to the higher officers and gave a complaint during the period. Only after taking charge, he conducted enquiry and directed the Executive Officer, Kamaraj to give a complaint which was received by the Inspector of Police, Pandhanallur Police Station, Thanjavur 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 and C.S.R.No122 of 2017 was given 23.05.2017. The petitioner discharged his duty and he did not screen the offences. This argument has some force in view of the documents showing about the petitioner joining period as Joint Commissioner at Mayiladuthurai. The Joint Commissioner office at Mayiladuthurai is having control over the Pasupatheeswarar Temple at Pandhanallur. It is not disputed by the prosecution that, during the relevant period in the year 2013, he was not the Joint Commissioner at Mayiladuthurai.
12. The case was registered on 26.07.2017. As on date, the above said six idols were not recovered and accused were not arrested. There is no material against the petitioner for commission of the offence under Sections 457(2), 380(2), 403, 409, 468 r/w 120(B) I.P.C., and Section 25(1) Antiques & Art Treasures Act, 1972. Further, with regard to the offence under Sections 201 and 202 I.P.C., causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender and intentional omission to give information of offences by person, bound to inform is also not made out as he did not joined as the Joint Commissioner 16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 of Mayiladuthurai, which is having jurisdiction and control over Pasupatheeswarar Temple at Pandhanallur, from which, the alleged six idols were missing in the year 2013. The petitioner joined duty as Joint Commissioner only on 10.08.2015. Therefore, these offences are also not made out. Apart from this, he conducted enquiry with regard to the missing of six idols and sent report to the Commissioner, HR& CE Department and also directed to give complaint and the complaint was also given which was received by Pandhanallur Police Station and C.S.R.No.122 of 2017 was also given. Further, the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, also conducted a detailed enquiry and specific charge has been framed against this petitioner pertaining to the case registered in Crime No.4 of 2017 and held that the petitioner was not having control over Pasupatheeswarar Temple at Pandhanallur, at the relevant period of missing of idols in the year 2013, he joined only on 10.08.2015.
13. Further with regard to stolen/dishonestly misappropriated original antique Manickavasagar idol a separate case has been registered in Pandhanallur Police Station in Crime No.256 of 2017, for the offences 17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 under Sections 403, 406, 409, 468 and 420 I.P.C on 09.02.2018, which is unconnected with the case in our hand.
14. In view of the above, without adding or subtracting anything from the FIR and the allegation in the FIR, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, it does not prima facie disclose the commission of offences by the petitioner/first accused under Sections 457(2), 380(2) and 202 I.P.C., and subsequently, altered into Sections 457(2), 380(2), 201, 202, 403, 409, 468 r/w 120(B) I.P.C., and Section 25(1) of the Antiques & Art Treasures Act, 1972.
15. The Apex Court in State of Haryana and Ors vs Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors reported in 1992 AIR 604, 1990 SCR supl.(3) 259 highlighted the parameters for exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for better appreciation and it is reproduced as follows:
8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustraion 18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide- 17 myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the ac- cused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontrovened allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not 19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the bais of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficeint ground for proceeding against the accused.
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/ or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. [305D-
H; 306A-E] 8.2. In the instant case, the allegations made in the complaint, do clearly constitute a 20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 cognizable offence justi- 17 on and this case does not call for the exercise of extraor- dinary or inherent powers of the High Court to quash the FIR. itself.
[307B] State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak. [1963] 2 SCR 52; distinguished).
16. Further, in the recent judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set out the following principles of law in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC On line SC 315 has held as follows:
“57.From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;
iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);21/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however,recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and
xv) when a prayrer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.”
17. In the present case, the uncontraverted fact is that the petitioner/first accused did not join as the Joint Commissioner, (HR& CE), Mayiladuthurai, during the relevant period of missing of the six idols in the year 2013. Therefore, he may not have the control over Pasupatheeswarar Temple at Pandhanallur and may not have knowledge about the missing of idols immediately, because he had joined duty only in the year 2015. Therefore, the allegation that he was causing of disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender or intentional omision to give information of offences, cannot be attached with the petitioner/first accused. Therefore, the allegations in the FIR do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner/first accused. 23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022 Further, even after registration of the FIR in the year 2017, no materials and evidence were collected against this petitioner in support of the allegation contained in the FIR. Further, it is to be noted that after registration of the FIR, he is suspended from his service and is not permitted to retire or superannuate and he is barred from getting retirement benefits. Therefore, I find no sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused at present. Therefore, continuing the criminal proceedingss against this petitioner would amount to abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed, since it satisfied with the parameters set out in the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Ors vs Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC On line SC 315 (cited supra).
18. In view of the above findings, I am inclined to quash the FIR in Crime No.4 of 2017 against this petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Internet:Yes./No 26.08.2022
Index:Yes/no
ebsi
24/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Idol Wing CID,
Kumbakonam,
Thanjavur District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
25/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13030 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
ebsi
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.13030 of 2022
26.08.2022
26/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis