Dismissed¶32

Elephant G.Rajendran v. Ins Gen of Po Guindy Ch

Madras HC17 Mar 2026CRL OP/24045/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P.No.24045 of 2018, Madras High Court, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J., order dated 17.03.2026 — petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for direction to IGP, Idol Theft Wing C.I.D. (Pon Manicavel team) to seize 36 idols, 3 bronze lamps and 8 artifacts from Sarabhai Foundation museum, alleged stolen from Tamil Nadu temples; dismissed for want of locus standi, absence of any registered case against the second respondent, omnibus allegations and public-interest-litigation character; keywords: idol theft, Section 482 CrPC, Crl.O.P., Pon Manicavel, Sarabhai Foundation, Elephant G.Rajendran party-in-person, locus standi, public interest litigation.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner failed to disclose his locus standi to seek the direction prayed for. ¶31

Elephant G.Rajendran Vs Ins Gen of Po Guindy Ch — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct the first respondent / investigation team (Idol Theft Wing C.I.D., headed by Mr.Pon Manicavel, Inspector General of Police, constituted by the Court) to seize, recover the 36 idols, 3 bronze lamps and 8 artifacts from the second respondent's museum and produce them before the Court.

¶24

Court's answer

The petitioner failed to disclose his locus standi to seek the direction prayed for.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of any piece of evidence showing that any case is registered against the second respondent, the direction sought cannot be issued to the first respondent.

¶31

Key takeaways

The petition suffered from omnibus allegations.ratio¶30
The entire allegations were in the form of public interest litigation, and the petitioner ought to have approached the appropriate court for appropriate relief; hence the criminal original petition was liable to be dismissed.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court dismisses a criminal original petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in which the petitioner (party in person) sought a direction to the Inspector General of Police, Idol Theft Wing C.I.D. (investigation team headed by Mr.Pon Manicavel, constituted by the Court) to seize, recover and produce before the Court 36 idols, 3 bronze lamps and 8 artifacts alleged to be stolen idols from Hindu temples of Tamil Nadu and kept in the second respondent Sarabhai Foundation's museum. Dismissing the petition, the Court held that it rested on omnibus allegations; the petitioner failed to state his locus to seek such a direction; and without any piece of evidence showing that any case is registered against the second respondent, such direction cannot be issued to the first respondent. Observing that the entire allegations were in the form of public interest litigation and that the petitioner ought to have approached the appropriate court for appropriate relief, the Court held the petition liable to be dismissed and dismissed it accordingly.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.24045 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17.03.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.24045 of 2018

ELEPHANT G.RAJENDRAN

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Inspector General OF Police,

¶11

IDOL THEFT WING C.I.D., OLD SIPCOT BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GUINDY, CHENNAI-32.

¶12

2.SARABHAI FOUNDATION,

¶13

PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, REGISTERED UNDER BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950, THE RETREAT, OPP-UNDERBRIDGE, SHAHIBAG, AHMEDABAD-380 004. REPRESENTED BY THE TRUSTEE AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, GIRA SARABHAI ... Respondents

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to issue direction to the 1st Respondent/Investigation Team constituted by this Court headed by Mr.Pon Manicavel, Inspector General of Police to seize, recover all the 36 idols and 3 bronze lamps and 8 artifacts and produce before this Court.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran (party in person)

¶17

For Respondents For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (crl.side)

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.24045 of 2018

¶21

For R2 : Mr.A.Ramesh, Senior Counsel for Mr.B.A.Sujay Prasanna

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This criminal original petition has been filed praying to issue

¶24

direction to the 1st Respondent/Investigation Team constituted by this Court headed by Mr.Pon Manicavel, Inspector General of Police to seize, recover all the 36 idols and 3 bronze lamps and 8 artifacts and produce before this Court.

¶25

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner visited the

¶26

museum of the second respondent and found antique idols of hindu deities. The second respondent filed petition in Crl.OP.No.19904 of 2018 thereby admitted that there are 36 bronze idols, 3 bronze lamps and 8 different stone artefacts in their museum. Those idols are huge dimension and are stolen idols from the hindu temples of Tamilnadu. Therefore, already the first respondent was constituted under the head of Mr.Pon. Manicavel to deal with the idol theft cases. Therefore, the petitioner sought for direction to the first respondent to seize and recover the idols from the second respondent.

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.24045 of 2018

¶30

First of all, this petition is with omnibus allegations and the

¶31

petitioner also failed to state as to what is his locus to seek such direction. Already the first respondent was constituted by this Court and they are dealing with the stolen idols. The petitioner did not even mention as to what case was registered against the second respondent on complaint. Therefore, without any piece of evidence to show that any case is registered against the second respondent, such direction cannot be issued to the first respondent. That apart, the entire allegations are in the form of public interest litigation and the petitioner ought to have approached the appropriate court for appropriate relief. Further, the entire pleadings are corrupt of facts and omnibus prayer cannot asked for and as such, this criminal original petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

4. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

¶33

17.03.2026 Index : Yes/No (2/2) Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order lok

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.24045 of 2018

¶37

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.