Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1981 (MAD)

N. Thirumagal v. S. Thennarasan

2022-07-08

G.JAYACHANDRAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam in Crl.M.P.No.916 of 2019 in Idol Wing CID Crime No.5/2018 and pass such further order.) 1. The petitioner is serving as Additional Commissioner in Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. On 23.07.2018, the Idol wing, CBCID received a written complaint from Rangarajan @ Narasimhan alleging that by way of dishonest means and criminal breach of trust, idol at Shri Kapaleeswarar Temple, Mylapore, Chennai, stolen. The petitioner herein was the Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer of the said temple at the relevant point of missing/theft of idol. 2. The complainant Rangarajan Narasimhan claiming himself as an active researcher of Temples in Tamil Nadu alleges that in August 2017, he came to know the idol of Lord “Parvathi” in the form of peacock at Shri Kapaleeswarar Temple, Mylapore, has been stolen by replacing the original one with the duplicate one, on the day before Fk;ghgpNfk; that was performed in the year 2004. He also alleged that the records are been erased by insiders of the Temple. The “Parvathi” idol is more than 1400 years old and a rarest of rare antique found nowhere else in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner along with one Venu Srinivasan, Chairman of Renovation Committee and Mr.Muthiah, Chief Sthapathi, are the persons directly involved in the theft by way of dishonest misappropriation after committing criminal breach of trust. Hence, he sought for registration of F.I.R without preliminary enquiry in view of grave magnitude of the crime alleged. This complaint dated 23.07.2018 been registered immediately in Crime No.5 of 2018 against Venu Srinivasan, N.Thirumagal, Muthaih and Temple officials for offence under Section 403, 406, 409, 202 and 120B of I.P.C 3. Apprehending arrest, this petitioner has filed anticipatory bail before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.19649 of 2018. This Court dismissed the petition on 28.11.2018. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Crl).No.10646 of 2018. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 13.12.2018, ordered notice to the respondents and in the meanwhile, in the event of petitioners arrest, she may be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court also directed Inspector General of Police was directed to file status report of the investigation. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 13.12.2018, ordered notice to the respondents and in the meanwhile, in the event of petitioners arrest, she may be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court also directed Inspector General of Police was directed to file status report of the investigation. 4. The petitioner was arrested three days thereafter and produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, designated Court for Idol theft cases. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam enlarged the petitioner on bail in Crl.M.P.No.1303 of 2018 on 17.12.2018 with a condition to report before Idol Wing Officials, Trichirappalli daily at 10.00 a.m until further orders. The said condition was later modified to the effect that the petitioner to report before Idol Wing, Chennai, at 9.00 a.m daily until further order. In Crl.M.P.No.1364 of 2018 the petitioner for further relaxation of bail condition. Her petition for further relaxation was declined by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. On 22.01.2019, her appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur also dismissed on 31.01.2019. The petitioner moved the High Court for relaxation of the bail condition in Crl.O.P.No.9617 of 2019. This application was considered in favour of the petitioner. The bail condition was modified to the effect that she has to report before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam once in 15 days. This condition was further relaxed totally on 29.08.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.11114 of 2019 in Crl.O.P.No.9617 of 2019. 5. While fact being so, the Investigating Officer in Crime No.5 of 2018 moved the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. The said petition in Crl.M.P.No.916 of 2019 was considered by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam and same was allowed accepting the plea of the Investigating Officer that the petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigation and breached the bail condition. 6. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner for the reason that, the petitioner did not co-operate with the investigation is under challenge in this petition. 7. 6. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner for the reason that, the petitioner did not co-operate with the investigation is under challenge in this petition. 7. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegation the petitioner failed to co-operate with the investigation is a blatant lie and contrary to their own affidavit filed before the High Court in W.P.No.218 of 2018 and their submissions before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kombakonam, made earlier in the relaxation petition. 8. The Courts below failed to test the veracity of the petition to cancel the bail. A false statement made in the petition without an accompanying affidavit has been relied by the Court below to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner failed to co-operate with the investigation. 9. The Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the impugned order, it is recorded that the petitioner did not heed to the request of the Investigating Officer when they went to her house on 13.01.2019, 18.03.2019, 21.04.2019, 18.05.2019, 08.06.2019 and 06.07.2019 and the petitioner stayed in her house locking inside and prevented the Investigation Team to enter into her house and interrogate her. This observation of the Court below is baseless and the respondent police, to substantiate their allegation, had not produced any summons served on the petitioner calling her for interrogation or any piece of evidence that the team went to her house on the days mentioned above. Further, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was attending the office on those days and no Officer of the respondent Wing visited her house on those days, for her to refuse entry into their house. The petitioner, who is an high rank Officer in the Government of Tamil Nadu with unblemished service has nothing to do with this alleged crime, which is registered on the surmises and fascinated imagination of the defacto complainant. She is unnecessarily been put to harassment by vested interest and in spite of intervention of Hon’ble Supreme Court granting protection to her with an imagination allegation of non-cooperation to the investigation, petition to cancel the bail filed to deprive her liberty. 10. She is unnecessarily been put to harassment by vested interest and in spite of intervention of Hon’ble Supreme Court granting protection to her with an imagination allegation of non-cooperation to the investigation, petition to cancel the bail filed to deprive her liberty. 10. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who represent the respondent police submitted that, the petitioner herein is holding a high post in the HR&CE Department and she is in custody of records, which are required for the investigation. She is deliberately refusing to cooperate with the investigation and when the investigation team visited her house on several days, she denied entry to her house. For the said reason, the respondent police wanted to cancel the bail and take her into the custody, enable them to proceed with the investigation. 11. This Court, when put a pointed question to the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-police, whether there is any document to show summons were issued to the petitioner for interrogation or any other document to show the team attempted to interrogate the petitioner or to search the residential premises of the petitioner and it was prevented by the petitioner, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor was unable to place any document to satisfy the above query. 12. The defacto complainant who was impleaded as 2nd respondent/Party-in-Person submitted that, the petitioner is facing investigation for offence under Section 201, 204 and 409 of I.P.C. The prime allegation against the petitioner and material collected during investigation conducted so far indicate that as a Senior Officer of the HR&CE Department and the person who was posted as the Executive Officer of the Temple at the time of alleged occurrence had caused disappearance of evidence and has destroyed documents. This has been spoken by some of the staff of the HR&CE Department and form part of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement recorded during investigation. Therefore, the liberty given to her has been clearly misused and therefore, bail granted her has to be cancelled. 13. This Court gone through the statement of witnesses so far recorded in the course of investigation. After grant of bail to this petitioner on 13.12.2018, several applications were filed for relaxation, few of them were dismissed and rest were allowed. But, in none of these applications, the respondent has seriously protested making any allegation of non-cooperation of investigation. 13. This Court gone through the statement of witnesses so far recorded in the course of investigation. After grant of bail to this petitioner on 13.12.2018, several applications were filed for relaxation, few of them were dismissed and rest were allowed. But, in none of these applications, the respondent has seriously protested making any allegation of non-cooperation of investigation. A serious allegation is made only in Crl.M.P.No.916 of 2019 filed on 14.08.2019, nearly 8 months after grant of bail. 14. Liberty is a fundamental right and when a person accused of a crime granted bail by a Judicial order then to cancel the same, there must be a strong reasons like commission of similar offence by the person accused or hampering the investigation or tampering the evidence or absconding or refused to submit for investigation or trial thereof. 15. In this case, the prosecution alleges that by non-cooperating with the investigation and holding a key post in the Department, there is possibility of hampering the investigation and tampering the collection of evidence. This allegation is not supported by any material evidence but only on surmises. A complaint which has been registered without any preliminary enquiry of an offence alleged to have been occurred 14 years ago, is still under investigation by the respondent police, even after lapse of 4 years of its registration. 16. The delay in completing the investigation is noway attributable to the petitioner herein. The CD file produced by the respondent police for perusal of this Court does not indicate even remotely, the petitioner conduct as the cause for the inordinate delay in completing the investigation. When the allegation in the petition to cancel the bail that the petitioner refused to co-operate with the investigation found to be baseless. It is obviously clear that petition to cancel the bail granted was filed with some ulterior motive with false allegations. 17. Therefore, this Court finds the trial Court while cancelling the bail, has not verified the veracity of the reasons stated for cancellation of bail and had arrived at an erroneous conclusion. As a result, the order dated 09.09.2019 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is hereby set aside. The Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.