Idol case THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Criminal Original Petition Nos.15492 & 24544 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos. 7667 of 2019 directed to file chargesheet add pp muniyappa raj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 28.06.2022 Pronounced on : 22.07.2022
Coram::
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Criminal Original Petition Nos.15492 & 24544 of 2019
& Crl.M.P.Nos. 7667 of 2019, 13081 of 2019 & 5205 of 2022
Crl.O.P.No.15492 of 2019
M.Muthiah Sthapathy [Age 76],
S/o.Muthu Sthapathy,
New No.26, Old No.20,
Venkatratnam Nagar Extension,
2nd Street, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. … Petitioner/3rd Accused

/versus/
1. The State,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Idol Wing, SIDCO, Old Corporate Building,
First Floor, Garment Complex-II, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 32.
2. Rangarajan Narasimhan,
S/o.PR.Narasimhan,
Plot No.3, First Floor,
Alarmel Avenue,
Bhattarthoppu, Srirangam, Trichy – 620 006.
3. A.G.Ponn Manickavel, aged 60 years,
Special Officer & Head of Special Investigation Team,
Idol Theft Cases,
Special Camp Officer,
District Armed Reserve Campus,
Subramaniapuram,
Tiruchirapalli. … Respondents
3rd Respondent is impleaded as per order of this Hon’ble Court dated 09.07.2019 made in Crl.M.P.No.9118/2019 in Crl.O.P.No.15492 of 2019.
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in F.I.R.No.5 of 2018 dated 23.07.2018 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.L.Narayanan
For R1 : Mr.R.Muniapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.N.S.Suganthan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.Rangarajan Narasimhan, Party-in-Person
Crl.O.P.No.24544 of 2019
N.Thirumagal, (F/aged 53 years)
W/o.S.Murugan,
No.1/1,92, Karunanidhi Sali,
6th Street, Vyasarpadi,
Chennai – 600 039. … Petitioner/2nd Accused
/versus/
1. The State,
Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Idol Wing,
Special Camp Office, Trichy.
2. Rangarajan Narasimhan,
S/o.Narasimhan,
Plot No.3, First Floor,
Alarmel Avenue,
Bhattarthoppu, Srirangam,
Trichy – 620 006. … Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.5 of 2018 on the file of 1st respondent and quash the same and grant order.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ramesh, Senior Counsel, for
M/s.Sudha Ramalingam
For R1 : Mr.R.Muniapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.N.S.Suganthan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.Rangarajan Narasimhan, Party-in-Person
C O M M O N O R D E R

Tmt.N.Thirumagal [A2] and Thiru.M.Muthiah Sthapathy [A3] are the
two petitioners before this Court through these petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking quash of the complaint dated 23.07.2018, which is under investigation in Crime No.5 of 2018 on the file of the 1st respondent police, which is a specialized Investigating Agency for Idol theft Cases.
2. The 1400 years old peacock stone idol carrying flower in its beak,
noticed missing from the Sannathi of Punnaivananathar along with the idols of ‘Ragu’ and ‘Ketu’ at Navagraha Sannathi inside the Kapaleswarar Temple,
Mylapore, Chennai is the fulcrum of the complaint under investigation in Crime No.5 of 2018. Since, it is presumed that the old antique idols were taken away and replaced with new idols during the consecration (Fk;ghgpN\fk;) conducted in the year 2004, the Chairman of the consecration (Fk;ghgpN\fk;) Committee, the Executive Officer of the Temple, the Chief Sthapathi of the State are suspected in this case.
3. The prosecution case is that, one Mr.Rangarajan Narasimhan a
resident of Srirangam, Trichy, claiming to be a litigant in Public Interest and had also evinced interest in protecting the heritage of the Nation, had come to now that in Sri Kapaleeswarar Temple, Mylapore Chennai, idol of Lord “Parvathi” in the form of peacock was with a flower in its beak been stolen by replacing the original one with a new idol on the day before consecration (Fk;ghgpN\fk); of the Temple performed in the year 2004. He had asserted in the complaint that the original idol of Lord “Parvathi” in the form of peacock with flower in its beak is now been replaced by a new idol of peacock carrying a snake in its beak. During his visit to the temple, his attempt to take photographs of the idol presently in the Sannathi is prevented by officials of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (hereinafter referred as “HR&CE”), who are guarding the sanctrum santorum (rd;djp).
4. He understands that, records are being erased by the insiders of the
temple. During his visits to the Temple, he gathered from Archagars and regular visitors of the Temple and other HR&CE employees that the replacement of the idol took place in the year 2004, a day consecration before Fk;ghgpN\fk. In the; complaint, three persons including the two petitioners who are before the court and one Mr.Venu Srinivasan are named. That apart, he also suspects other nn known Temple Officials as persons involved in the act of replacement of the old idol of peacock carrying flower in its beak with a new idol with peacock carrying snake in its beak, on the day before Fk;ghgpN\fk; held in the year 2004. Suspecting that, without the knowledge of the Executive Officer (A2) such replacement could not have happened, hence he has sought for registration of the case without any preliminary enquiry. That apart, he has warned the recipient of the complaint that refusal to register his complaint will amount to commission of cognizable offence and advised no preliminary investigation is required on his complaint as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2014) 2 SCC 1 reported in LalitaKumari -vs- Government of Uttar Pradesh dated 12.11.2013 and requested to register F.I.R and investigate.
5. Considering the content, warning and advice as found in the
complaint and extracted above, the complaint received on 23.07.2018 at about
18.30 hours was taken for investigation by registering Crime No.5 of 2018 under
Section 403, 406, 409, 202 read with 120B of I.P.C, 1860, without preliminary inquiry.
6. Submission on behalf of the petitioners:-
The Learned Counsels for the petitioners submitted that the tenor of
the complaint by Mr.Rangarajan Narasimhan itself prima faciely show that, it has been generated with an oblique motive and malice. The complaint about a incident alleged to have occurred 14 years ago been registered without a preliminary enquiry against high esteemed members of the society succumbing to the veil threat made by the defacto complainant. Misquoting of thre Supreme Court guidelines to threat the police that if his complaint not registered without preliminary inquiry will amount to a cognizable offence, is the exposure of the true intension of the complainant.
7. In the complaint, there is no material to reasonable believe that a
peacock idol 1400 years old was in the precinct of PunnaiVananadhar Sanctum Sanctorum at Kapaleeswarar temple, Mylapore. No material furnished by the defacto complainant about the date of consecration (Fk;ghgpN\fk); or the date on which, the alleged replacement of idol took place. The complaint which is the subject matter of the investigation came to be registered after 14 years of the alleged occurrence. In the investigation, nothing incriminating the petitioners collected so far, except the statements of certain disgruntled staff of HR&CE, who had suffered disciplinary action at the hands of the 2nd accused and the statements of certain persons, who claim to be Archagars and admittedly had grudge over the Thiruppani Committee for not heeding to their opinion.
8. In so far as, Tmt.Thirumagal (A2) the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.24544 of 2019, it is specifically contended that the petitioner was posted as Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer at Arulmighu Kapaleeswarar Temple, Mylapore between 2002 to 2007. Later she was promoted as Joint
Commissioner (Thiruppani) in the year 2007 and posted as Joint Commissioner,
Villupuram between 2008-2010. Then transferred and posted as Joint Additional Commissioner, (Head Quarters) and served in that post between 2010-2012 till her promotion as Additional Commissioner in the year 2013. She is holding the post of Additional Commissioner (General) from 30.12.2006 till date. She had been discharging her Official duty diligently without any fear or favour and while she was serving as Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer in Sri Kapaleeswarar
Temple, Mylapore, she redeemed 100 grounds of dry land owned by the Temple, which worth several hundred crores of rupees. She increased the revenue of the Temple by three times through fixation and collection of fair rent for all the Temple properties and organized renovation and consecration (Fkg;hgpN\fk); of the temple. While so, during the year 2017, allegation without any basis involving her in the idol theft started cropping up on the instigation of certain vested interest. Particularly allegation was made regarding swapping of a peacock idol in Sri
Kapaleeswarar Temple, Mylapore, in the year 2004, during her tenure as Executive Officer of the temple.
9. The F.I.R is the handiwork of busy bodies to attract public
attention and gain publicity. The complaint based on hearsay information was registered without any preliminary investigation. It is apparently a motivated complaint to pursue a smear campaign against the HR&CE Department. The F.I.R registered after 14 years of the alleged incident, hurriedly without any verification and lack evidence to substantiate swapping of idol during 2004 consecration (Fk;ghgpN\fk;) is evident from the fact that in spite of pro-longed investigation for more than four years, no evidence against her had been surfaced except some ipse dixit statements of tainted persons having grudge over her or who are unconnected to the affairs of the temple or who were forced to say certain incriminating statements under force and duress. Hence, the F.I.R is liable to be quashed.
10. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Muthaih Sthapathi (A3)
petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.15492 of 2019 submitted that the petitioner is a ‘Padma Shri Awardee’ and had received accolade all over the World and received several titles in appreciation of Shilpa Sasthra. He was appointed as Chief Sthapathi of HR&CE Department and his role is to advice the department whenever his opinion is sought for in any work related to the temple statues and idols including renovations. In the said context, when his advice was sought regarding the Navagraha in Kapaleeshwarar Temple,he visited the temple and found the “Ragu” idol was without the body of the snake, which he should necessarily possess and therefore, advised the Temple authority to rectify the said defect and install idol of “Ragu” which have snake body. In his opinion, the defective stone idol of “Ragu” must have been sculpted in recent times, probably within the last 100 years and the defect in the sculpting indicated to him that it was not a workmanship of any old clan of sculptures. He also suggested to change the “Dwara Balagar” statue in the Temple. He has not given any advice to the department about the peacock idol situated in Punnai Vananadhar Sannathi. His advice are always in writing and he is not in the habit of giving oral advice on major issues pertaining to Temple. His opinion is always addressed to Commissioner (HR&CE) and not to any other Officers or individuals. Without any complaint or regrets, he had been serving as Chief Sthapathi of the Department for nearly 25 years and the allegation against him in the complaint are motivated and ill-found. To gain private advisements and also particularly to tarnish his image and to project as if, he is carrying on illegal trade of antique idols through his export business namely “Swarnam Exports and Imports”, the complainant has specifically included his name in his complaint.
11. The 3rd accused-Muthiah Sthapathi, has also averred that, the high
handedness of the 1st respondent by registering complaint against Mr.Venu Srinivasan and others had caused considerable damage to the maintenance of
Hindu Temple since a frivolous complaint has been registered against Mr.Venu Srinivasan, a Philanthropist, who has denoted nearly 150 crores rupees to renovate various Temples in the State of Tamil Nadu. Alleging that, the complaint in respect of an imaginary theft occurred 14 years ago is made only for private gain advertisement and self-publicity.
12. Submission on behalf of the respondents:-
The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor represented the State/first
respondent. The 3rd respondent in this case (in Crl.O.P.No.15492 of 2019) is the
Special Officer and Head of Special Investigation Team, Idol Theft cases Mr.A.G.Ponn Manickavel. He was impleaded as 3rd respondent subsequently and he is represented hrough his Learned Counsel Mr.Selvaraj. The defacto complainant Rangarajan Narasimhan appeared in person. Parties either represented through counsels or in person made their submissions.
13. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent
submitted that the First Information Report was against three known and few unknown. In the course of investigation, the petitioners were arrested and later, released on bail. Totally, 7 persons are now been suspected as accused. In the course of investigation, statement by six witnesses including the defacto complainant recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, under Section 164 (5) of Cr.P.C.
The statement of one Mr.Sekar, former car driver of Mrs.N.Thirumagal (A2), (petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.24544 of 2019) has given a statement to the effect that, on the day prior to consecration (Fk;ghgpN\fk;) he saw few persons on the instruction and supervision of N.Thirumagal removing the old peacock idol and placing it in the boot of the car, then she left in the car, Four Archagars also speak about the event which took place on the day before consecration (Fk;ghgpN\fk); in the year 2004.
14. The defacto complainant – Mr.Rangarajan Narasimhan submitted
that his complaint is not on surmises, but on material evidence and literatures about the Temple and the idols. He denied the allegations made about his motive. Further, he adds, after Mr.A.G.Ponn Manickavel, relieved from his post as Special Officer, there is no progress in the investigation and even his statement not so far
recorded by the Investigating Agency. He laments that he has lost faith in the 1st respondent investigating his complaint and made an oral request to transfer the investigation to some other agency.
15. The Learned Counsel Mr.V.Selvaraj appearing for the 3rd
respondent submitted that, 3rd respondent is is no more in charge of the investigation. However he took exceptions to certain remarks made about his client in the quash petition. He submitted that, till 3rd respondent was at the helm of affairs, he, to the best of his ability had conducted the investigation and collected materials. Sufficient materials available incriminating the petitioners herein and they provided reasons to believe that they were privy to the replacement of 1400 years old idol of peacock carrying flower in its beak with a new idol of peacock carrying snake in its beak which does not fit the Silver Kavasam made in the year 1995 and denoted to the temple.
16. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, apart from the
submissions made based on material collected during the investigation also made a preliminary object to entertain these petitions on the ground that petitions to quash FIR is only in rarest case where there is no material to investigate or the complaint is tainted with malice without any iota of substance to investigate the offence alleged. The documents collected in the course of investigation in this case does not fall within the scope to exercise the residual power vested with the High Court.
Therefore, documents at the stage of investigation need not be taken for appreciation of its veracity and reliability. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab and others reported in (2020) 3 SCC 317, relied.
17. For convenience, the observation of the Apex Court in the
judgment cited supra is extracted below:-
“8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash a criminal proceeding is only when no allegation made in the FIR or the chargesheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding.”
18. This Court considering the gravity of the allegations made against the petitioners as well as the claim made by the petitioners regarding their innocence, is of the view that this is an exceptional case were missing of idol reported after 14 years. Case registered without preliminary enquiry and the investigation is pending for more than 4 years, however so far neither the idol nor atleast the trail of the idol alleged to have been stolen is traced. That apart, the petitioners/accused alleges malice and abuse of process. Incidences of abuse of power and high handedness by the investigation compelling witnesses to say as per their dictate also brought to notice of his court. The dictum laid by Supreme Court in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab and others cited supra is more appropriate to the cases which are at early stage of investigation, but not for cases pending for years under investigation. Hence, the interest of justice requires exercise of the residual power under Section 482 of the Code. Hence, Case Diary file from the respondent police summoned and examined.
19. Findings:-
Apart from the complaint which is based on hearsay, the statements of
witnesses recorded either under section 161(3) or under section 164 of the Code.
The incriminating portions are found in the statement of Mr.Sekar driver and one
Manbahadur, served as Gurkha ($h;fh) in the temple. Statements of Mr.Sekar and Mr.Manbahadur are the crucial piece of evidence relied by the prosecution to proceed with the investigation against these petitioners. That apart, the statements of Haripriya, Kavery and Ashok, who are the officials of HR&CE Department and a letter dated 02.11.2008 sent by HR&CE department stating that no document available in relation to 2004 consecration (Fk;ghgpN\fk;) are the other incriminating material collected during the course of investigation.
20. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent furnished a compilation of the relevant statement of witnesses and documents collected during the course of investigation to substantiate the reasonable believe to proceed against these petitioners for the offences under Sections 120 B, 201, 409 and 204 of I.P.C. The statements and documents found in the given compilation, according to the respondent are sufficient to proceed with the investigation against the petitioners are extracted below:-
(i). Kabali Vaithiyanathan @ Murugan [L.W.1] Archakar of Sri Kapaleeswarar Temple, Mylapore, in his statement recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C., by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kumbakonam on 30.05.2019 at 11.40 a.m, had stated that, he was appointed as Archakas by HR&CE
Department in the year 2000. He had participated in the consecration
(Fk;ghgpN\fk;)which held in the year 1996, 2004 and 2016. For consecration
(Fk;ghgpN\fk;) conducted in the year 2004, the Chairman of TVS Groups of
Company Mr.Venu Srinivasan was appointed as the Chairperson of Thiruppani Committee. Ms.Thirumagal, was the Executive Officer of the Temple. She compelled all the staff members of the temple to conduct abhishekam for the Lord “Sivan” and the expenses was deducted from their salary. During the gpurd;dk; by
Namboothiris, the Panicker suggested to replace the peacock idol in the Sanctum Sanctorum of Punnai Vananathar. Mr.Muthaih Sthapathi also suggested replacement of peacock idol and the Lord Angaragan, Ragu and Ketu idols in Navagara Sannathi. On 30.08.2004 consecration (Fk;ghgpN\fk); of the temple was conducted. Eight statues were brought in the lorry during the 4th session of ahfk;.
Two “DwaragaBalayar” idols at Lord “Sivan” Sannithi and two “Dwaraga Devathaigal” idols at Amman Sannithi and a new peacock idol with snake with its beak were installed. He found the old peacock idol was missing at Sanctum Sanctorum of Punnai Vananathar. Similarly, the Lord “Ragu” & “Ketu” idols at Navagara Sannithi was also found missing. One Balu and Magesh informed him that these three idols were buried under the Punnai Tree inside the Temple. Few years ago, Lakshmanan of TVS groups of Company denoted Silver Kavasam for the “Siva Lingam”, “peacock” and “Punnai Vananathar”. Usually these idols will be covered with Silver Kavasams every Friday. After Fk;ghgpN\fk; in the year 2004, the Temple authorities stopped covering the Silver Kavasam on the idols. When the donor Lakshmanan enquired Vellayutham, who was the Maniyakarar of the temple, he informed that, Silver Kavasam does not match the new idol and therefore, Executive Officer, Ms.Thirumagal instructed him not to place Silver Kavasam to the new peacock idol. In this connection, Maniyakarar of the temple has given a letter that the peacock idol was replaced long back. This letter again retracted and clarified in their statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C by the Investigating Agency.
(ii). Rathina Sabapathi Gurukkal, whose statement was recorded
under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kumbakonam on the same day, at 3.50 p.m had stated that, a day before consecration (Fk;ghgpN\fk); of the year 2004, several Yagasala was installed. At about 150 Gurukkals were doing pooja. He was one among them present in the temple, premises on the request of Balaji Gurukkal S/o.Kumarasamy Gurukkal. At about 10.00 a.m., Ranganathan, his assistance Magesh and Balu brought a stone idol of peacock with snake in its beak, a Ragu idol with snake tail and a Ketu idol with snake head. They kept it on the table near one of the Yagasala. On the day of Fk;ghgpN\fk; in the year 2004 at about 5.00 a.m at Punnai Vananathar Sannathi he saw in the place of antique peacock idol, Magesh was installing a new peacock idol with snake in its beak. He was informed by Magesh that he is installing the new idol on the instruction of Mr.Venu Srinivasan and Ms.Thirumagal. When Kabali Gurukkal questioned them that he has not received any instruction about the replacement of the idols, Magesh told KabaliGurukkal to ask the Executive Officer.
(iii). Balaji Gurukkal, in his 164 of Cr.P.C statement in addition to
what Rathina Sabapathy Gurukkal has stated, In addition he has also stated that when Ms.Thirumagal, Executive Officer, asked him to conduct Pooja for the new idol of peacock and the idols of “Ragu” and “Ketu”, he refused. Therefore, she conducted the pooja to these idols through Rathina Sabapathy Gurukkal and Amirthakadeswarar Gurukkal.
iv). Venkata Subramaniyam, in his statement recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C on 10.07.2019 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam had stated that, for 7 generations his family is serving as Gurukkal in Sri Kapaleeswarar Temple. He is aware of the history of the temple and after narrating what he had heard from his ancestors about the Kapaleeswarar temple, Mylapore, he had spoken about the Fk;ghgpN\fk; held in the year 2004 under the Chairmanship of Mr.Venu Srinivasan, Chariman of TVS groups of Company and Ms.Thirumagal as Executive Officer of the Temple. He had spoken about the objection raised by the Temple Gurukkals for seeing ‘Prasannam’ before consecration (Fk;ghgpN\fk); and implementing the suggestions given by the Panikars during ‘Prasannam’ for replacement of idols of peacock, Ragu and Ketu. Also their objection for (ghyhyhak;) for the reason they believe against the custom of Temple, if they conduct ghyhyhak;> there won’t be rain and people with face drought. Quoting that in the previous three consecration (Fk;ghgpN\fk); held in the year 1948, 1982 and 1996 (ghyhyhak); was not conducted, they gave a letter to Ms.Thirumagal, Executive Officer to drop the proposal of conducting ghyhyhak;. Ms.Thirumagal got angry and tore the letter and threatened dire consequence. A day before Fk;ghgpN\fk; between 10.00 a.m to 11.00 a.m, new statue of peacock with snake in its beak along with the “Ragu” and “Ketu” idols were brought to the Temple by Ranganathan, his assistance Mahesh and Balu. The local Gurukkals refuse to do ceremonial pooja to the new idols, so Mrs.Thirumagal, E.O, conducted the ceremony to the new idols with the help of Rathina Sabapathy Gurukkal and Amirthagatesa Gurukkal, who were outsiders. He saw Kabali Gurukkal objecting the installation of new peacock idol replacing the old idol. On the next day Ms.Thirumagal, E.O and Ranganathan of TVS group of Companies instructed Suresh Gurukkal to conduct pooja for the peacock idol carries snake in its beak. He also stated about Silver Kavasam which did not fit the new peacock idol, He heard, Suresh Gurukkal was instruct to tell the devotees that, the peacock idol is holding flower in its beak. Further, he has stated that covering the peacock idol with Silver Kavasam on every friday was stopped, since it did not match the new idol.
v). The star witness to the prosecution is Mr.Sekar, Former Driver. He
in his statement recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C., by Judicial Magistrate-I, Thanjavur on 8th August 2019 stated that, he was driver in Sri Kapaleeswarar temple Mylapore, since 1987. He was asked to drive the car of Executive Officer. When he joined service, one Mr.K.K.Raja was Executive Officer. Till 2005, he continued to be the driver for all the Executive Officers, who succeeded Mr.K.K.Raja. In the year 2002 Ms.Thirumagal, took charge as Executive Officer in the Sri Kapaleeswarar Temple. One day Ms.Thirumagal, E.O., orally instructed to drive the car of the then Minister P.C.Ramasamy. He refused to drive for the Minster on oral instruction and insisted for written order. Ms.Thirumagal scolded him for not obeying her order. One day, she asked him to bring her slippers from the car, which he refused, so he was posted to the ticket counter to sell Archanai ticket. The ticket counter is near Punnai Vananathar Sanctum Sanctorum. One day he saw Mr.Venu Srinivasan, his Manger Ranganathan, his staff Balu and Magesh discussing with Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer Ms.Thirumagal. At about 9.00 p.m., they removed the peacock idol with flower in its beak. The devotees asked him why there are removing the peacock idol, he directed them to enquire with the Executive Officer Ms.Thirumagal. When devotees enquired Ms.Thirumagal, E.O, about the removal of peacock idol, she, in turn, called him and scolded him for diverting the devotees to her office. He saw Mr.Muthaih Sthapathi enquiring Mr.Magesh and Mr.Balu whether they have completed the work. Then, on instruction of Ms.Thirumagal, the peacock idol was lifted by Magesh and Balu along with Mr.Ranganathan and was kept it in the boot of the car bearing registration No.TN-07-G-997.
21. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) appearing
for the respondent referring these statements and photographs of Ms.Thirumagal, Executive Officer, with Mr.Venu Srinivasan during the consecration
(Fk;ghgpN\fk;) and the photograph of peacock idol printed in the book written by
T.M.Bhaskar Tonadiman M.A., published in the year 1960 by S.R.Subramaniya Pillai Publishers, Tirunelveli submitted that, the photograph of the peacock idol found in the book carry flower in its beak. Whereas, the present idol found in Sanctum Sanctorum of Punnai Vananathar is carrying snake in its beak. The replacement of old idol with the new idol on the day before consecration of the year 2004 spoken by Gurukkals who have given their statements about the missing of old idol of peacock with flower in its beak and installation of new idol of peacock carrying snake in its beak.
22. The statement of Mr.Sekar which speaks about the presence of Executive Officer, Thirumagal and Mr.Muthaih Sthapathi along with other accused instructing to remove the peacock idol with flower in its beak and to keep it in a car will prove that the antique idol was removed on the eve of consecration (Fk;ghgpN\fk;) in the year 2004 in the presence of these two petitioners and others.
23. Further, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent submitted that, when the Investigating Officer asked the HR&CE Department to furnish details about when and how the statue of peacock idol was replaced, the HR&CE department has informed that, they don’t have any records about the replacement of peacock idol. Also the destruction of records connected with the 2004 consecration (Fk;ghgpN\fk;) by Ms.Thirumagal is spoken by Tmt.Haripriya, Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, Department in her statement.
24. Therefore, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondents submitted that from the investigation so far conducted, the active participation of these two petitioners in causing dis-appearance of the old peacock idol, screening the evidence and destruction of documents in connivance with other accused is prima faciely made out. On completion of investigation, the full facts and evidence incriminating these petitioners will be placed before the Special Court.
25. To the questions, how long it will take for the respondent/Investigating Officer, to complete the investigation, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, it may take another 4 to 6 months.
26. Incidentally, this Court also had an occasion to hear in Crl.O.P.No.18583 of 2019 filed by one Kader Batcha, (DSP) wherein, a serious allegation has been made regarding the style of investigation by the idol wing and falsely implicating in Crime No.114/2005 wherein he was part of investigation as Inspector of the idol wing during 2006 to 2011 based on alleged confession of one of the accused and registration of Crime No.1/2017 based on a unanimous letter alleging omission of registering the case of 3 idols recovered during the year 2007.
27. Though, one of the above case (Crime No.114 of 2005) is
regarding the mysterious travel of 4 antique idols from India and its return to India after 28 months and another (Crime No.1 of 2017) about 3 idols unearthed in the year 2007. The commonness in these cases and the case in hand is not only the Chief of the Idol wing investigating team is one and the same but also all these cases are registered several years after the alleged theft. Registered based on informations given by tainted persons or based on vague or unanimous letter. This may be due to the alacrity of the officer probing old theft cases or the style of investigation pegging on confession statement or information from tainted persons. Be is at it may, the petition of Mr.Kader Batcha is referred only in the contest of malice attributed to the investigating agency by the petitioners herein.
28. Then, back to the petitions under considered. On taking note of
the records and statements placed before this Court, we find the prosecution harp on three important evidence which incriminate the petitioners. They are:-
1). The photographs found in the book written by Mr.T.M.Bhaskara
Tonadiman and published in the year 1960, to establish the peacock idol in Punnai Vananathar Sannathi carrying flower in its beak.
2). The statement of Mr.Sekar, Former driver of Ms.Thirumagal, Executive Officer, who witnessed the removal of peacock idol with flower in its beak on the night prior to 2004 consecration (Fk;ghgpN\fk); and placing it in the boot of the car bearing Reg.No.TN-7-G-997.
3). The Silver Kavasam which fit the old idol does not fit the new
idol. For the said purpose, the entry in Kanikkai register of the year 1995 is relied by the 1st respondent to show that, the Silver Kavasam which is not matching the present new peacock idol was denoted in the year 1995 by one Mr.Lakshmanan & Mr.Venu Srinivasan. The statements of Gurukkal also relied to establish, the idols were covered with silver kavasasam every Friday and this practise got suspended after 2004 Kumbabishekam. The entry dated 22.07.1995 in the Kanikai register, indicating that Mr.Lakshmanan Mr.Venu Srinivasan had denoted six items of
silver articles is relied.
29. The photograph found in the documentary book published in the
year 1960 is a relevant document to prove the existence of a stone idol of peacock carrying flower in its beak in the Sannathi of ‘Punnai Vana Nathar’ before 1960. The statement of Mr.Sekar has to be taken with caution in view of the fact that he admits his grudge against Ms.Thirumagal, Executive Officer, for his refusal to obey her order and he was suspended from service for his insubordination. Regarding the entries found in the Kannikai register, the entries are made by the then Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer. There is also a document to show that the silver Kavasam for peacock found in the list of silver articles used daily (epja;gbmyq;fhuk); . In the statement of one of the witness, placing Silver Kavasam to the peacock idol stopped in the year 2002 itself. Out of two donors of the silver Kavasam, Lakshmanan reported dead. The other donor is alive and he is made an one of the accused in this case. No statement sought from him about the Silver Kavasam donated by him and the alleged misfit of the Kavasam to the idol presently kept in the Sannathi. A fair investigator might have summoned Mr.Venu Srinivasan as donor of the Silver Kavasam and attempted to record his statement also tested whether the Silver Kavasam donated by him in the year 1995 is the same which is available in the temple and whether it fits the present idol or not. Till date, no investigation done to testify the alleged mismatch of Silver Kavasam and the peacock idol.
30. The proceedings of Prasannam (gpurd;dk;) for Fk;ghgpN\fk;
relied by the prosecution to show that during the Prasannam (gpurd;dk;) the peacock idol was suggested to be replaced. However, in that said proceedings, this Court finds an ‘noting’ that the peacock idol already replaced (i.e.,) much before the consecration (Fk;ghgpN\fk); . Likewise, in the opinion given by Mr.Muthaih Sthapathi on 28.07.2003, he had not stated anything about the replacement of the peacock idol at Punnai Vananadhar Sannathi. In his letter dated 27.05.2003, he has made totally 22 suggestions with reasons. Again, he has addressed a letter to the Commissioner of HR&CE Department on 20.04.2004, wherein, he has given 8 suggestions, even in that letter, he has not said anything about the replacement of the peacock idol.
31. The Court is made to refer these statements and documents
because the prosecution has registered the complaint of Rangarajan Narasimhan without preliminary enquiry. Even after lapse of 4 years, the evidence collected so far discloses only this much and till date, they could not fix when the old idol of peacock with flower in its beak was replaced. If, it was replaced in the year 2004 on the eve of consecration (Fk;ghgpN\fk;), as stated by some of the Gurukkals and driver Mr.Sekar, they should have collected details by this time which sculpture made the new idol; what was the consideration passed and who paid the
consideration.
32. The statement of some of the sculptures relied by the Additional Public Prosecutor does not indicate anything about the sculpting of peacock idol with snake in its beak. Whatever they said in the statements are only hearsay and not direct. The communication of ‘Sankara Mutt’ regarding idols for Mylapore Temple also does not indicate anything about the peacock idol it is only in respect of other idols.
33. The investigation team may have some justification for not tracing
the trail of missing idol, but no justification can be given for not tracing the trail of the new idol which according to them came to the temple in the year 2004. The 4 years of investigation done under the High Court monitoring has made no headway, leading to the presumption that what are all alleged in the complaint still remains as hearsay and nothing worth.
34. This Court also take judicial notice of the fact that Sri Kapaleeswarar Temple, Mylapore, Chennai, is not a remote temple or God forsaken Temple. It has visitors from local and abroad every day. Public of all strata of Society are regular visitors to the said temple. If there was some replacement of idol contra to Agama (Mfkk;) had taken place, devotees would have noticed. Those devotees would have made protest or there would have been some indication about the replacement, before or soon after the said replacement. For the past 14 years, there is no whisper about such replacement or missing of
idol.
35. The Gurukkals, who have now come forward to say about the
missing of idols after 14 years have recorded their resentment against the HR&CE department for ignoring their share of advice while conducting the Fk;ghgpN\fk;. Unreasonable silence for 14 years on their part without any reason cannot be ignored on just brush aside. The temple which has devotees from all rank, can not have missed their attention, if any idol removed and replaced by a different one. .
36. This Court is of the view that without ascertaining the existence of
a peacock idol with flower in its beak and its alleged disappearance, on the day before 2004 Kumbabishekam running after these petitioners may provide some sensational news but will not help to unravel the truth. The investigation commenced based on hearsay The statements of tainted witnesses also purely hearsay and apparently given due to ill will against the officer. All put together gives an impression that not “All is Well” in this case. Till date, the investigation and statements recorded only centres on the hearsay history of the temple relocated from the shores of ‘Maria beach’ to the present place to accommodate a church some 1400 years ago and a hymn of a Saint lived in 10th century A.D praising Goddess ‘Parvathi’ as peacock worshipping Lord ‘Siva’ at Mylapore.
37. Conclusion:-
This Court like anybody else is concern about our heritage and
retrieval of the idols stolen from our temple. But that concern cannot be exploited and misused to fix innocents to settle score of personal grudge.
38. Considering the manner in which the case came to be registered
and time taken for investigation and the material collected so far in the past 4 years, the petitions are disposed with a direction to the First respondent to complete the investigation and file final report within a period of four months, from today. Failing which, the F.I.R., shall stand quashed. Even, if the F.I.R is quashed for default as ordered above, it is made very clear that, it should not be taken as a clean chit to any person whomsoever, that the case of missing peacock idol is closed. Whenever the missing idol traced or material surfaces which is sufficient to reasonably believe that the old idol was replaced clandestinely and secreted with oblique intention, then those who are responsible for such an act can be prosecuted.
39. As a result, these Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
22.07.2022
Index :Yes.
Internet :Yes.
Speaking order/Non-speaking order bsm
Copy to:-
1. The Inspector of Police,
Idol Wing, SIDCO, Old Corporate Building,
First Floor, Garment Complex-II, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 32.
2. The Special Officer & Head of Special Investigation Team,
Idol Theft Cases,
Special Camp Officer,
District Armed Reserve Campus,
Subramaniapuram, Tiruchirapalli.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.  
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
bsm
Delivery common order made in
Crl.O.P.Nos.15492 & 24544 of 2019
& Crl.M.P.No. 7667 of 2019, 13081 of 2019 & 5205 of 2022
22.07.2022