Disposed

Rangarajan Narasimhan, A/47 v. the Inspector General of

Madras HC22 Feb 2019CRL OP/5596/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A second complaint alleging theft of temple idols and artefacts was held maintainable despite police closure of the first complaint. The Court directed the Idol Wing to investigate thoroughly, allowing all parties to submit their versions and materials, without deciding the allegations' merits. The principal petition was disposed of and the companion petition closed.

What did the court decide?

Idol Wing directed to investigate the complaint thoroughly and proceed according to law, giving all parties reasonable opportunity to present their versions and supporting materials.

Rangarajan Narasimhan, A/47 Vs the Inspector General of — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Reserved on: 15.02.2019

¶3

Delivered on: 22.02.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

Crl.O.P.Nos.5596 and 27061 of 2018 and Crl.MP.Nos.10578, 10587, 10588 of 2018 Rangarajan Narasimhan ...Petitioner in Crl.OP.No.5596/2018 Elephant G.Rajendran ...Petitioner in Crl.OP.No.27061/2018 Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Police Idol Theft Wing CID Old Sipcot Building, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. ...1^st Respondent in both the petitions 2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 34, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. (R2 impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 25.07.2018 in Crl.MP.No.9321/2018) ... 2^nd Respondent in Crl.OP.5596/2018

¶7

Crl.OP.No.5596/2018: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to issue suitable directions to the respondent to register the complaint dated 03.11.2017, file an FIR and investigate the crime.

¶8

Crl.OP.No.27061/2018: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to issue a direction to the respondent Inspector General of

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

Police Idol Wing CID to register criminal case against Joint Commissioner, the then Commissioner and others involved in these illegal misappropriation, theft etc.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran
Party-in-person in
Crl.O.P.27061/2018
& Rangarajan Narasimhan
Party-in-person in
Crl.O.P.5596/2018
For Petitioner : Mrs.Hema Sampath, SC
Crl.MP No.10578/2018 for Mr.R.Karthikeyan
For Petitioner : Mr.Satish Parasaran, SC
Crl.MP No.10587/2018 for Mr.R.Karthikeyan
For Petitioner : Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, SC
Crl.MP No.10588/2018 for M/s.R.Ramya
For R1 : Mr.Natarajan, Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.C.Iyyapparaj,
APP and Ms.Thankira, GA (Crl.Side)
For R2 Mr.C.Karthik, SC for
Mr.M.Maharaja, SGP (HR&CE)
COMMON ORDER
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners
viz., Rangarajan Narasimhan and Elephant G.Rajendran as
party-in-person, have sought a direction to the respondent Idol
Wing to register a case, based on their respective complaints
lodged by them.

¶12

2.Since the issue involved in both the petitions is one and the same, the same are being heard together and decided by this common order.

¶13

3.According to the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.5596 of 2018, he claiming himself to be a devotee of Arulmigu Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Srirangam, earlier lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, on 13.10.2017 against the officials of the H.R&C.E. Department, with regard to theft of the following idols/artefacts of the said temple:

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

(a)Shri Namperumal Utsavar Idol is replaced with a similar looking idol in Shri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Srirangam;

¶16

(b)Shri Purushothama Perumal Idol from Sri Thiruvarangathamudhanar Sannidhi situated in Chakkarathazhwar Sannidhi.

¶17

(c)Countless Salagramam from the Moolavar Shri Ranganatha Swamy by altering the structure of the Moolavar celestial body.

¶18

(d)Idols littered around in 1000 pillar mandapam during the visit of the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court in WP.No.574 of 2015 on 19.09.2015.

¶19

(e)Doors of all Sannidhis and Gopurams

¶20

(f)Kalasams of many gopurams and Vimanas

¶21

(i)Venugoapala Sannidhi

¶22

(ii)Karthika Gopuram

¶23

(iii)Aryabadal Gopuram

¶24

(g)Many 3-4 feet tall stone lamps with lion carvings similar to those in Shri Chakkarathazhwar Sannidhi Pillars.

¶25

(h)Illegal excavation in the entire premises.

¶26

Though the complaint was received, neither a case was registered nor any reason was given to the petitioner for not registering the same. Hence, the petitioner sent an e-mail to the Commissioner of Police, Trichy City Police in this regard. Even thereafter, he has not received any reply. Finding no other option, he made another complaint on 03.11.2017 to the respondent Idol Wing and the same is pending without any progress. Therefore, the present Crl.OP.No.5596 of 2018.

¶27

4.The case of the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.27061 of 2018 is that he sent a representation dated 27.11.2017 to the respondents requesting to initiate criminal prosecution against the higher officials of the HR&CE Department alleging that they committed illegal acts of misappropriation, theft, damaging, removing and altering ancient and antique artefacts in Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam, Tiruchirapalli District. Since the said representation was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court with the present petition in Crl.OP.No.27061 of 2018.

¶28

5.As per the order dated 02.07.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, the aforesaid petition in Crl.OP.No.5596 of 2018 was taken up for hearing by this Court. During the pendency of the same, pursuant to the direction of this Court, the petitioner has taken out an application in Crl.MP.No.9321 of 2018 in Crl.OP.No.5596 of 2018 to implead the second respondent HR&CE as party to this petition. The said petition was ordered on 25.07.2018, impleading the

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Chennai -34 as the second respondent in Crl.OP.No.5596 of 2018.

¶31

6.Pending the Criminal Original Petitions, one S.T.Rangachari claiming himself as one of the Trustees of Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Srirangam, filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in Crl.MP.No.10578 of 2018 to get impleaded in Crl.OP.No.5596 of 2018 as party respondent, stating that the petitioner has been publishing scurrilous allegations harming the reputation of the members of the Board in the minds of the devotees in various media including social platforms, such as 'face book' and 'whatsapp'; and he seems to be misquoting and misrepresenting the facts and has been placing false statements in the present Criminal Original Petition as well as before this Court during the course of hearing, by accusing the officials, trustees, archakas and the sthalathars. On similar lines, another Trustee of the same temple, viz., Dr.K.N.Srinivasan filed a petition in Crl.MP.No.10588 of 2018 to implead himself as party respondent in Crl.OP.No.5596 of 2018, in order to put forth necessary factual aspects for better appreciation of the entire scenario. Similarly, the temple administration viz., the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer representing Arulmigu Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam filed a petition in Crl.MP.No.10587 of 2018 to implead themselves as one of the respondents in Crl.OP.No.5596 of 2018.

¶32

7.No counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent Idol Wing. However, stoutly denying the allegations raised in Crl.OP.No.5596 of 2018, the second respondent / HR&CE Department, before impleading them as party to this petition, filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein, at paragraphs 5, 7 and 8, it is specifically averred as follows:

¶33

“5.It is submitted that from the information received from the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of Arulmigu Aranganatha Swamy Temple, Srirangam, on receipt of the alleged complaint of theft on 13.10.2017 by the petitioner, the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Srirangam Police Station has conducted an investigation and in furtherance of the same, he directed the temple administration to furnish details and evidences to support the case and accordingly, the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of the temple has given his remarks with documents vide RC.No.3280/1426/D1 dated 15.10.2017 and the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Srirangam after conducting a thorough investigation, had come to a conclusion that there is no need to register an FIR, since no prime facie case is made out, that

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

the complaint was closed and the same has been communicated to the petitioner.

¶36

7.It is pertinent to point out that Arulmigu Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Srirangam has been recognized with an Award of Merit 2017 by UNESCO Asia Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation. In the letter dated 01.11.2017 received from UNESCO, Asia – Pacific Regional Bureau for Education, it was stated that Undertaken through a major public-private initiative, the conservation of the Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple has revived the extensive religious complex at the core of Srirangam temple town. The project has revealed the original fabric of the shrines, water bodies and landscape within the temple's four inner enclosures, which were once obscured under layers of inappropriate modern additions and tons of debris. Employing traditional construction materials and techniques, the restoration work was carried out in an authentic manner by local craftspeople in accordance with ancient building principles and rites. The technical team effectively overcame the perennial flooding problem through the re-establishment of the historic water harvesting and drainage system. The temple today attracts great attention among its devotees and supporters, whose renewed sense of pride and custodianship will ensure its long-terms sustainability.

¶37

8.It is submitted that renovation works carried out under the Chairmanship of eminent Industrialist and Philanthropist Thiru.Venu Srinivasan, received worldwide appreciation. But the petitioner is in the habit of slugging hard over cursing the Trustees and the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of the above temple, officials of the HR&CE Department only with the intention to bring disrespect to the Temple and to defame the Department. In order to achieve his ulterior design, he is continuously indulging in forum shopping by filing fabricated documents created by him and vexatious petitions before various Benches of this Hon'ble Court.”

¶38

By stating so, the second respondent sought to dismiss the Criminal Original Petition.

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶40

8.Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, Mr.C.Karthick, learned Senior Counsel representing the learned Special Government Pleader for the second respondent HR&CE Department contended that the idols and artefacts said to have been stolen, are very much available in the temple premises and hence, the allegations made by the petitioner against the officials of the HR&CE Department are utterly false and baseless. He further submitted that without conducting any enquiry to find out whether the complaint lodged by the petitioner discloses the commission of a cognizable offence or not, the first respondent police cannot register the same. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel prayed for dismissal of these petitions.

¶41

9.Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Crl.MP.No.10578 of 2018/ proposed respondent submitted that the renovation works have been carried out in the temple during 2015-2017 in an excellent manner and the same has received appreciation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) for outstanding conservation achievements. However, the petitioner, raising frivolous litigations against the temple and making scurrilous and imaginary allegations against the administration and the Board of Trustees, filed a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Srirangam on 13.10.2017. After due investigation, the said complaint was closed. Being dissatisfied, he made another complaint before the respondent police with regard to the alleged theft of idols and artefacts, which, according to this proposed respondent, are very much available in the temple premises and hence, there cannot be any such incident of theft as alleged by the petitioner.

¶42

10.Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.MP.No.10588/2018/proposed respondent seriously opposed the relief sought for in the petition in Crl.OP.No.5596/2018. According to him, the idols and deities are kept safely within the premises of the temple and there is a rhombus procedure for maintaining safety of the idols, jewels and other assets, which is strictly followed by the temple authorities. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the old doors of Sri Rangantha Swamy Temple, which are in unusable condition, have been replaced with new doors and the old doors are still safely preserved within the temple premises in the Thousand Pillar Mandapam. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the allegations raised in the complaint lodged by the petitioner are fictitious and hence, the respondent police cannot register the same.

¶43

11.Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.MP.No.10587 of 2018 submitted that

¶44

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶45

this proposed respondent is the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of Arulmighu Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam. According to him, the petitioner, though knowing well that all the idols, which were alleged to have been stolen, are very much available and maintained inside the temple, has filed the present petition, solely with an intention to harass this proposed respondent. Hence, this proposed respondent is necessary party to reveal the true facts and demonstrate that the allegations made by the petitioner are not only baseless, but also malicious.

¶46

12.Heard the parties and perused the records. As the issue involved in both the Criminal Original Petitions is relating to the theft of idols/artefacts of Arulmighu Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Srirangam, suffice it to refer to the facts leading to the filing of Crl.OP.No.5596 of 2018.

¶47

13.The facts remain undisputed are that the petitioner originally made a complaint on 13.10.2017 before the Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station with regard to the alleged theft of idols/ artefacts of the temple. The said complaint was received as CSR No.687/2017 and was subsequently, closed as mistake of fact. Feeling aggrieved over the feeble attempt made by the Station House Officer with regard to the earlier complaint sent by the petitioner, he made another complaint on 03.11.2017 on the same set of facts to the first respondent Idol Wing. Such complaint for the second time by the petitioner is opposed by the respondents herein.

¶48

14.In view of the aforesaid position, the only point that would arise for consideration is as to whether the second complaint lodged by the petitioner is maintainable?

¶49

15.The general principle of criminal law is that any person can set the law in motion. Section 154(1) Cr.P.C mandates the officer in-charge of a police station to reduce the information into writing and enter the substance thereof in a book kept by such an officer. In case, the officer in-charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence reported, the person aggrieved can send the substance of the information in writing by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who, if satisfied that the information forwarded to him, discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case by himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by Sub-section (3) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. 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

¶50

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶51

the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) before the Magistrate concerned. On such application, the Magistrate can direct the investigation agency to register a first information report and to conduct a proper investigation besides monitor the investigation, if warranted. As soon as the investigation is completed, the officer in-charge of the police station, under Section 173(2) is required to forward the police report to the Magistrate, who empowers to take cognizance of the offence. In case, the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceedings under Section 203, shall give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report, so that he can file a protest petition before the Magistrate to direct re-investigation, as held in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police [AIR 1985 SC 1285].

¶52

16.There are umpteen number of cases dealing with the aforesaid provisions of the Code. The Apex Court as well as various High Courts held that the second complaint is maintainable, even if the first one is dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Similarly, when the complaint under Section 154 or 156(3) is closed by the Station House Officer as false or mistake of fact or mistake of law and the same is not judicially recorded, there is no bar in law for filing of the second complaint. A few of the cases are:

¶53

(i)In Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar [AIR 1962 SC 876], it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:

¶54

“...An order of dismissal under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, e.g., where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings have been adduced.”

¶55

(ii) In Ranvir Singh v. State of Haryana & another [(2009) 9 SCC 642], it was held that second complaint can be maintained in exceptional circumstances. Paras 23 to 29 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference:-

¶56

“23. In the instant case, the question is narrowed down further as to whether such a second complaint would be maintainable when the earlier one had not been dismissed on merits, but for the

¶57

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶58

failure of the complainant to put in process fees for effecting service.

¶59

The answer has been provided firstly in Pramatha Nath Talukdar's case, wherein this Court had held that even if a complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C, a second complaint would still lie under exceptional circumstances, indicated hereinbefore. The said view has been consistently upheld in subsequent decisions of this Court. Of course, the question of making a prayer for recalling the order of dismissal would not be maintainable before the learned Magistrate in view of Section 362Cr.P.C, but such is not the case in these special leave petitions.

¶60

In the present cases, neither have the complaints been dismissed on merit nor have they been dismissed at the stage of Section 203 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, only on being satisfied of a prima facie case, the learned Magistrate had issued process on the complaint.

¶61

The said situation is mainly covered by the decision of this Court in Jatinder Singh's case, wherein the decision in Pramatha Nath Talukdar's case was also taken into consideration and it was categorically observed that in the absence of any provision in the Code barring a second complaint being filed on the same allegation, there would be no bar to a second complaint being filed on the same facts if the first complaint did not result in the conviction or acquittal or even discharge of the accused, and if the dismissal was not on merit but on account of a default on the part of the complainant.

¶62

As far as the first complaint under Section 420/34 I.P.C. is concerned, the petitioner has not seriously questioned the order of the High Court rejecting the petitioner's prayer for quashing the same. The petitioner confined his case mainly to the complaint wherein the learned Sessions Judge took cognizance and issued process under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, despite an earlier complaint on the same ground and on the same set of facts having been dismissed earlier for non-filing of process fees.

¶63

We are unable to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner,

¶64

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶65

since the law with regard to the filing of a second complaint is now crystallised. It is well settled that such a complaint is maintainable in different circumstances as enumerated in Pramatha Nath Talukdar's case and Jatinder Singh.

¶66

We, therefore, have no hesitation in dismissing both the Special Leave Petitions, since we are of the view that both the complaints are maintainable and the impugned judgment of the High Court does not warrant any interference. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.”

¶67

(iii) In Poonam Chand Jain & another v. Fazru, [(2010) 2 SCC 631], the Supreme Court, after having considered all the earlier judgments on the issue, at paras 15 to 19, held as under:

¶68

“15. Almost similar questions came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Pramatha Nath Talukdar and Anr. v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar . The majority judgment in Pramatha Nath was delivered by Justice Kapur. His Lordship held that an order of dismissal under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short `the Code') is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances. This Court explained the exceptional circumstances as:

¶69

(a) where the previous order was passed on incomplete record, or

¶70

(b) on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint, or

¶71

¶72

(d) where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings.

¶73

This Court in Pramatha Nath made it very clear that interest of justice cannot permit that after a decision has been given on a complaint upon full consideration of the case, the complainant should be given another opportunity to have the complaint enquired into again. In paragraph 50 of the judgment the majority judgment of this Court opined that fresh evidence or fresh facts must be such which could not with reasonable

¶74

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶75

diligence have been brought on record. This Court very clearly held that it cannot be settled law which permits the complainant to place some evidence before the Magistrate which are in his possession and then if the complaint is dismissed adduce some more evidence. According to this Court such a course is not permitted on a correct view of the law. (para 50, page 899)

¶76

This question again came up for consideration before this Court in Jatinder Singh and Ors. v. Ranjit Kaur. There also this Court by relying on the principle in Pramatha Nath held that there is no provision in the Code or in any other statute which debars complainant from filing a second complaint on the same allegation as in the first complaint. But this Court added when a Magistrate conducts an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code and dismisses a complaint on merits exceptional circumstances. This Court held in para 12, if the dismissal of the first complaint is not on merit but the dismissal is for the default of the complainant then there is no bar in the filing a second complaint on the same facts. However if the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Code was on merit the position will be different.

¶77

Saying so, the learned Judges in Ranjit Kaur held that the controversy has been settled by this Court in Pramatha Nath and quoted the observation of Justice Kapur in paragraph 48 of Pramatha Nath: (AIR p.899, para 48)

¶78

An order of dismissal under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, e.g., where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings have been adduced. It cannot be said to be in the interest of justice that after a decision has been given against the

¶79

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶80

complainant upon a full consideration of his case, he or any other person should be given another opportunity to have his complaint enquired into.

¶81

Again in Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy and Anr., a three Judge Bench of this Court considered this question in paragraph 19 at page 740 of the report. The learned Judges of this Court held that a second complaint is not completely barred nor is there any statutory bar in filing a second complaint on the same facts in a case where a previous complaint was dismissed without assigning any reason. The Magistrate under Section 204 of the Code can take cognizance of an offence and issue process if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. In Mahesh Chand this Court relied on the ratio in Pramatha Nath and held if the first complaint had been dismissed the second complaint can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances and thereafter the exceptional circumstances pointed out in Pramatha Nath were reiterated. Therefore, this Court holds that the ratio in Pramatha Nath is still holding the field. The same principle has been reiterated once again by this Court in Hiralal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. In paragraph 14 of the judgment this Court expressly quoted the ratio in Mahesh Chand discussed hereinabove.

¶82

In view of the above, it cannot be said that second complaint is barred or cannot be entertained. The first question is accordingly answered. The second complaint is maintainable in certain cases.”

¶83

(iv)In Manoharbal v. Vashdev [1983 Mad LW (Cri) 319], it was held as follows:

¶84

“when a Magistrate sends a complaint for enquiry under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., he does not take cognizance of the case, that consequently when he receives the report stating that the complaint should be referred either as false or as mistake of fact or mistake of law, he does not pass any judicial order, but merely lodges the complaint and does not take any further action and in such circumstances, there is no bar in law for the Magistrate to entertain a second complaint and take cognizance of it and issue process to the accused”.

¶85

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶86

Thus, the principles deduced from the aforesaid decisions are that there is no statutory bar in filing a second complaint, on the same facts, however, it would be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, such as, where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on misunderstanding of nature of complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust, fallacious or false or where new facts, which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in a previous proceedings, have been adduced.

¶87

17.Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the firm opinion that the second complaint made by the petitioner is maintainable, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein, on the same facts, the first complaint, which was given by the petitioner, was ultimately, closed by the Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, however, no communication was sent to the petitioner in this regard; further, there is no judicial order with regard to the closure of the earlier complaint made by the petitioner; and hence, the same falls under the exceptional circumstances as held by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred supra.

¶88

18.Now, coming back to the factual matrix of the present case, the petitioner lodged the second complaint raising various allegations against the officials of the HR&CE Department, Trustees and archakas of the temple. In support of his statements, he produced various materials. The allegations raised in the complaint and the averments made in this petition are totally denied by the second respondent HR&CE department as well as the proposed respondents. The sum and substance of the submissions made on the side of the contesting as well as the proposed respondents are that during the years 2015-17, only renovation works were carried on and the idols and artefacts, which were alleged to have been stolen, are very much available in the temple premises. They also produced voluminous materials supporting their versions. Further, they strenuously opposed the act of the petitioner in putting up various posts on social media for the purpose of causing defamation to them and vilification of Court process.

¶89

19.Considering the rival submissions, this Court directed the Idol Wing Officials to visit the temple and find out the factual position. After such visit, the said officials submitted that a detailed enquiry is to be conducted so as to unravel the truth.

¶90

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶91

20.Be that as it may, on the last occasion, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the Special Officer appointed by this Court to deal with the idol theft cases, submitted that they are ready and willing to conduct investigation on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, after issuing due summons to all the parties. (*)

¶92

21.Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, this Court, without going into the merits of the claims made by the respective parties, directs the respondent Idol Wing to conduct thorough investigation on the complaint dated 03.11.2017 made by the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.5596 of 2018 and proceed further as per law. However, it is made clear that all the parties including the petitioner in both the petitions as well as the contesting and the proposed respondents should be given a reasonable opportunity to have their say and furnish the relevant materials, substantiating their respective stands. Accordingly, Crl.OP.No.5596 of 2018 stands disposed of.

¶93

22.In view of the order so passed in Crl.OP.No.5596 of 2018, no further order needs to be passed in Crl.OP.No.27061 of 2018 and is hence, closed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. -s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-I) Dated:28/03/2019

¶94

(*) Deleted as per the order of this Court dated 29/03/2019 Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-VI) Dated;16/05/2019

¶95

True Copy

¶96

Sub-Assistant Registrar rk

¶97

To 1.The Inspector General of Police To be substituted to Idol Theft Wing CID the order already Old Sipcot Building, despatched on Industrial Estate, 28/03/2019 Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶98

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶99

2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 34, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶100

The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras 104.

¶101

+1 CC to Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Advocate sr 16829
+1 CC to Ms.R.Ramya, Advocate sr 16853.
+1 CC to the Special Govt. Pleader sr 17820.
+2cc to Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran, Advocate Sr.30746
Crl.O.P.Nos.5596 and 27061 of 2018
MP(CO)
SP(28/03/2019)
srg 20/05/2019

¶102

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Rangarajan Narasimhan, A/47 v. the Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangarajan Narasimhan, A/47 v. the Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Sakthivel Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

J.Krishnamoorthy Vs the Inspector General of Police

Tr.Dhanapal, S/o.Paneer Selvam Vs Dy. Superintendent of Police

Kempraj Vs Inspector General Of Police

Suresh Vs State Rep by

Santhanakrishnan Vs State by