Kader Batcha v. the Director

Madras HC18 Mar 2025CRL OP/26202/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CBI investigation interference; restraint on media interviews; undertaking affidavit; anticipatory bail conditions; idol theft Palavoor Temple Crime No.114/2005; FIR Crime No.RC0502024S0013 dated 08.08.2024; SLP (Crl.) No.9446 of 2022; Crl.O.P.No.18583 of 2019; closure report Crime No.1 of 2017; protest petition; S.528 BNSS; Madras High Court; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of on recording the third respondent's undertaking (affidavit dated 17.03.2025) not to comment on sub-judice issues including the present case; the interim direction to file an undertaking affidavit stood complied with; no further directions issued. ¶67-68

Kader Batcha Vs the Director — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶67-68

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent (CBI) should be directed to ensure fair investigation in Crime No.RC0502024S0013 by restraining the accused (third respondent) from interfering with the investigation through media interviews and other modes. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

By interim order dated 12.03.2025, this Court directed the third respondent to file an undertaking affidavit that he will not give any interview which would affect the CBI investigation.

¶54-55

Ratio / Principle

Recording the third respondent's affidavit dated 17.03.2025, wherein he undertook not to comment on issues that are sub-judice including the case before the Court, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶67-68

Key takeaways

Paragraphs 1 to 10 of the third respondent's affidavit, containing his views on the cases against him and his defence steps, are matters to be decided before the appropriate forum and were not decided by this Court.obiter¶60-64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.), Crl.O.P.No.26202 of 2024, decided 18.03.2025 under S.528 BNSS: The petitioner/de-facto complainant sought a direction to the CBI for fair investigation in Crime No.RC0502024S0013 (FIR dated 08.08.2024) and restraint of the third respondent (then IGP, Idol Wing CID) from media interviews allegedly interfering with the investigation and violating anticipatory bail conditions. By interim order dated 12.03.2025 the Court directed the third respondent to file an undertaking affidavit. On his affidavit dated 17.03.2025 undertaking not to comment on sub-judice matters, including the present case, the petition was disposed of on 18.03.2025; the rival allegations and merits were left to be decided before the appropriate forum.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.26202 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.26202 of 2024

¶7

Kader Batcha S/o.R.Ibrahim, No.17/14A, Saranalayam Garden, Dayasadan Road, Nerkundram, Chennai - 600 107. … Petitioner/de-facto complainant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State Rep. by The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Plot No.5B, 6 th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

¶10

Prashanth Srivastava, The Additional Superintendent of Police, SC-II, CBI, New Delhi – 110 003. FIR No.RC0502024S0013.

¶11

3.A.G.Ponn Manickavel,

¶12

The Then IGP Head Idol Wing CID Chennai,

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/10

¶14

Crl.O.P.No.26202 of 2024

¶15

No. 19, Kamarajar Salai,

¶16

Kottivakkam, Chennai (R3 Impleaded as per order dated 07.11.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.15482/2024 in Crl.O.P.No.26202/2024) … Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Sections 528 of BNSS, praying to direct the 1st respondent to take necessary steps for fair investigation by restraining the accused from interfering the investigation by way of media interviews and other modes based on the petitioner's representation dated 20.09.2024 in Crime No.RC0502024S0013 dated 08.08.2024, pending on the file of 2nd respondent.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Infant Dinesh

¶19

For RR-1 & 2 : Mr.K.Srinivasan

¶20

Special Public Prosecutor (CBI Cases)

¶21

For R3 : Mr.V.Selvaraj

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This Court, on 12.03.2025, had passed the following order:

¶24

“ The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in

¶25

this case, the third respondent foisted cases against him and he was arrayed as accused, arrested and remanded during investigation. Even before, the petitioner was posted as Inspector of Idol Wing Team, a case in Crime No.114/2005 was registered regarding the

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.26202 of 2024

¶28

theft of 13 idols from Palavoor Temple. Out of 13 idols stolen, 4 recovered from the possession of one Deenadayalan, who is arrayed th as 8 accused in the final report. The third respondent in collusion with Deenadayalan started to foist false cases against the officers like him. He arranged for granting pardon to Deenadayalan and freed him from Palavoor case and included the name of Subash Chandra Kapoor as prime accused. Aggrieved against the petitioner being orchestrated, the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.18583 of 2019, in which, the entire facts as to how the petitioner has been falsely implicated and cases were registered against him, were narrated.

¶29

2.This Court, by the order dated 22.07.2022, taking into consideration the international ramification of the offence, exchange of allegations against each other by two police officials, who were privy to the idols theft cases, the alleged attempt to screen the crime of theft and the thieves, found that it is a case to be investigated by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to unravel the truth and to secure the culprits as well as recovery of other antique idols and directed the CBI to conduct investigation. Further directed the CBI to take cognizance of the petitioner's representation dated 20.04.2019 and 15.06.2019 while investigating the case in Crime No.1 of 2017 and if any concoction of fact and falsification of evidence is found in

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.26202 of 2024

¶32

Crime No.114 of 2005, CBI is permitted to proceed against them independently and file a report.

¶33

3.Aggrieved against the said order, the third respondent approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.9446 of 2022. The Hon'ble Apex Court, by the order dated 27.03.2023 observed that the impugned order therein made without giving opportunity to the third respondent to rebut the adverse remarks made against him and granted leave to file an appropriate petition before this Court to expunge the adverse remarks made against him. After this order, no such petition filed before this Court or before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thereafter, a fresh F.I.R. in Crime No.RC0502024S0013 dated 08.08.2024 registered against the third respondent by the CBI. Thereafter, the third respondent approached Madurai Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P(MD) No.13674 of 2024 seeking anticipatory bail and this Court, by the order dated 30.08.2024, granted anticipatory bail to the third respondent with certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the third respondent to appear before the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Shastri Bhawan, Chennai daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation and further not to tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. After

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.26202 of 2024

¶36

obtaining anticipatory bail, the third respondent appeared before the CBI and after interrogation, he started meeting the press and giving long interviews making objections and allegations about the manner in which the investigation is being carried out and he being targeted.

¶37

4.According to the petitioner, this interview amounts to interference in the investigation and violation of the conditions passed by this Court in the anticipatory bail petition. Hence, the petitioner sent representation dated 20.09.2024 to the CBI seeking appropriate action to be taken against the third respondent. Since no action has been taken, the above petition has been filed.

¶38

5.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the CBI registered a case based on the directions given by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.18583 of 2019. The order is a detailed one, wherein idol theft cases which were investigated by the petitioner as well as by the third respondent were narrated. There are allegations and counter allegations against the petitioner and the third respondent. Be that as it may. In the meanwhile, the third respondent aggrieved on the order passed by this Court, approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.9446 of 2022. The Hon'ble Apex Court by the order dated 27.03.2023 dismissed the petition finding that the third respondent

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.26202 of 2024

¶41

has no locus. Thereafter the CBI registered an F.I.R. in Crime No.RC0502024S0013 dated 08.08.2024. Thereafter, search was also conducted on the third respondent's premises. The third respondent filed anticipatory bail petition and obtained protection order. One of the conditions in the anticipatory bail petition was that the third respondent to appear before the CBI and the third respondent complied the condition. In this case, on investigation CBI found that Crime No.1 of 2017 is a false case and a closure report filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. Opposing the closure report, the third respondent and 7 others filed protest petition, which is pending. As regard the F.I.R. in Crime No.RC0502024S0013, which was filed against the third respondent, now investigation completed, charge sheet is yet to be filed.

¶42

6.He further submitted that finding the third respondent's

¶43

act is not in conformity to the anticipatory bail order passed by this Court, CBI is now contemplating to file cancellation of bail petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court. With regard to the merits of the case the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the third respondent has also approached Madurai Bench of this Court seeking for preliminary enquiry report, which was strongly opposed and it is also informed that third respondent is filing a quash

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10

¶45

Crl.O.P.No.26202 of 2024

¶46

application. That is the merits of the case that can be decided. As regards the prayer herein, the petitioner sought for fair investigation and restraining the third respondent from interfering in the investigation by way of Media interview. As regards the fair investigation, the investigation almost completed, charge sheet made ready. With regard to the media interview by the third respondent, it is for this Court to pass appropriate orders restraining the third respondent. Further during investigation the third respondent being a former responsible police officer cannot give such interview which would amount to interference in the investigation and that too immediately after interrogation.

¶47

7.The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted

¶48

that he is not going into the merits of the case. Already petitions are pending before the Madurai Bench of this Court. The contention of the third respondent is that the petitioner not brought the true facts and entire materials before this Court while obtaining the order in Crl.O.P.No.18583 of 2019. Further the third respondent acted only on the directions of the Special Division Bench of this Court and he reported the registration of case, stage of investigation to the Special Bench of Idol Wing of this Court periodically. Now glossing over the same and passing order in Crl.O.P.No.18583 of 2019 would not be

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10

¶50

Crl.O.P.No.26202 of 2024

¶51

proper but that is the merits of the case. He would contend the same with appropriate materials. The apprehension of the petitioner that giving interview would be an interference in investigation and apprehension of the minds of the witnesses is unwarranted.

¶52

8.The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that after

¶53

filing of the above petition before this Court, the third respondent has now kept away from media interview and the same to be continued.

¶54

9.In view of the same, the third respondent shall file an

¶55

undertaking affidavit stating that he will not give any such interview, which would affect the investigation by the CBI.

¶56

10.The learned counsel for the third respondent seeks short accommodation to file an appropriate undertaking affidavit.

¶57

11.Post on 18.03.2025. ”

¶58

2.In continuation and conjunction to the earlier order passed by this

¶59

Court on 12.03.2025, the third respondent filed an affidavit dated 17.03.2025

¶60

containing 12 paragraphs. Though paragraph Nos.1 to 10 pertain to his views

¶61

on the cases against him and the steps taken by him to defend the same, these

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10

¶63

Crl.O.P.No.26202 of 2024

¶64

are all the matter to be decided before the appropriate forum. As regards

¶65

paragraph No.11, the third respondent gives an undertaking that he will not

¶66

comment on the issue that is sub-judice including the case before us.

¶67

3.Recording the same, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed

¶68

of.

¶69

18.03.2025

¶70

Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral citation: Yes/No rsi

¶71

To:

¶72

1.The Director, Central Bureau Of Investigation, Plot No.5b, 6th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.

¶73

The Additional Superintendent Of Police, SC-II, CBI New Delhi - 110 003.

¶74

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶75

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10

¶76

Crl.O.P.No.26202 of 2024

¶77

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶78

rsi

¶79

Crl.O.P.No.26202 of 2024

¶80

18.03.2025

¶81

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Registration of Crime No.114/2005 regarding theft of 13 idols from Palavoor Temple, prior to petitioner's posting as Inspector of Idol Wing Team.¶25
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.18583 of 2019 narrating his alleged false implication and registration of cases against him.¶28
Prior proceeding
By order dated 22.07.2022 this Court, citing international ramifications and exchange of allegations between two police officials privy to idol theft cases, directed CBI to conduct investigation.¶29
Prior proceeding
Third respondent challenged the 22.07.2022 order before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.9446 of 2022; as narrated by petitioner's counsel, the Apex Court by order dated 27.03.2023 observed the order was passed without opportunity to rebut adverse remarks and granted leave to seek expungement.¶33
Prior proceeding
As submitted by the Special Public Prosecutor, the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 27.03.2023 dismissed the SLP finding the third respondent had no locus.¶38-41
Prior proceeding
Fresh F.I.R. in Crime No.RC0502024S0013 dated 08.08.2024 registered against the third respondent by the CBI.¶33
Prior proceeding
Third respondent obtained anticipatory bail from the Madurai Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P(MD) No.13674 of 2024 by order dated 30.08.2024, with conditions including daily appearance before CBI and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.¶33
Prior proceeding
After appearing before CBI and interrogation, the third respondent gave long press interviews making objections and allegations about the investigation.¶36
Prior proceeding
Petitioner sent representation dated 20.09.2024 to CBI seeking action against the third respondent; no action was taken, prompting this petition.¶37
Prior proceeding
CBI found Crime No.1 of 2017 to be a false case and filed a closure report before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.¶41
Prior proceeding
Third respondent and 7 others filed a protest petition opposing the closure report, which is pending.¶41
Prior proceeding
Investigation in Crime No.RC0502024S0013 almost complete; charge sheet yet to be filed.¶41
Prior proceeding
CBI contemplating filing a cancellation of bail petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court, finding the third respondent's acts not in conformity with the anticipatory bail order.¶43
Prior proceeding
Interim order dated 12.03.2025: this Court directed the third respondent to file an undertaking affidavit that he will not give interviews affecting the CBI investigation.¶54-55
Prior proceeding
Third respondent filed affidavit dated 17.03.2025 containing, in paragraph 11, an undertaking not to comment on sub-judice issues including the present case.¶65-66

Kader Batcha v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kader Batcha v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Thulasi Vs the State

P. Edwin Vs v. Loganathan

V.Loganathan Vs P.Edwin

M.Prabha Vs S.Karthik

B. Illango Vs the State Rep by Its, the Deputy Superintendent of Police

T.D.Naidu Vs the Additional Superindent of Police