Undue Importance To Baseless Reports Will Affect Interest Of Justice: Madras High Court Allows Plea Of Former Inspector General Heading Idol Wing
The Madras High Court quashed the proceedings against the former Special Officer who was appointed as the head of the Idol Wing-CID.
Justice R N Manjula, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench
The Madras High Court has allowed the Petition filed by a former Inspector General of Police (IGP) who served in Idol Wing-CID (Criminal Investigation Department) in the State of Tamil Nadu and retired from service in the year 2018.
An Original Petition filed by him before the Madurai Bench sought calling for the records of the unnumbered docket order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Madurai, which rejected his prayer to furnish a copy of the preliminary report in connection with an FIR.
A Single Bench of Justice R.N. Manjula observed, “In the present report all those actions taken by the petitioner on the basis of the information obtained by him have been criticized as intentional. Giving validity for such a report may cause prejudice in the mind of the court on the case of the prosecution even before the trial is concluded. If such baseless reports are allowed to be given undue importance than what it would deserve, then in every case involving police officials, an opposite syndicate will start act against the investigating team and try to sabotage the material gathered and filed in the court by the investigating team. Such an unhealthy trend will certainly affect the interest of justice.”
The Bench added that there may be exceptional circumstances which may fall outside the above general view and hence, the Courts will have to evaluate the materials on a case-to-case basis only.
Senior Advocate C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar and Advocate M. Pozhilan appeared for the Petitioner while Senior Advocate K. Srinivasan and Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) D. Mohideen Basha appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Petitioner namely A.G. Ponmanickavel, a former IGP was appointed as a Special Officer to head the Idol Wing-CID, Chennai to deal with the cases of theft of idols and antiques in all stages for a period of one year subsequent to his superannuation in 2018. Allegedly, the ancient idols in ancient temples in Thanjavur District worth several crores of rupees were moved and stocked unofficially against the H.R. & C.E. norms and the trustees along with the Executive Officers of H.R. & C.E. Department created records as though the idols are intact, when factually six idols out of which, five belonging to various temples were missing. Instead of keeping the idols in the ICON centre, they were allegedly kept in an unauthorised tunnel and also in a scrap room belonging to the Public Works Department.
Despite numerous complaints being given, no action was taken. It was alleged that the Petitioner along with other officials came into possession of 6 idols and sold two of the idols to a notorious smuggler for Rs. 15 lakhs, which in turn were sold for Rs. 6 crores. During the proceedings, the Petitioner appraised the difficulties faced by the Idol Wing and the modus operandi of the culprits for smuggling the idols out of India. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)-Respondent had conducted a preliminary enquiry and filed a report before the ACJM and the Petitioner’s request to grant a copy of the enquiry was rejected on the ground that the investigation was pending. Being aggrieved, he was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, laid down the following principles –
(i) Firstly, any person aggrieved of producing any false evidence or fabricating any document during judicial proceedings before a Court can make an application seeking the Court to make a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C., but it can be only after the proceedings are concluded.
(ii) If the Court declines to form an opinion to give a complaint in writing and rejects the application of the applicant, the one and only course open to him is to file an Appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. before the Appellate Court within the meaning of Section 195(4) Cr.P.C.
(iii) The Court which is meant under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is the Court to which the former Court is subordinate. In other words, it is immediate Superior Court of the Court where the offences enumerated under Section 195 (1)(b) are said to have been committed.
(iv) When such an Appeal is made under Section 341 Cr.P.C. the order made by the Appellate Court under Section 341 (2) shall be final.
(v) Against the Order made by the immediate appellate Court under Section 341(2), no revision would lie before any Courts, which would otherwise have the revisional jurisdiction.
The Court clarified that a person aggrieved on the allegation that a false evidence has been produced before the Court, cannot seek any remedy before the Sessions Court or the High Court by seeking direction even against the Court which is supposed to make a complaint under Section 340(1) Cr.P.C.
“Even for any extraneous reasons, if a person seeks directions before the superior courts, the superior courts can only remand such applications back to the Courts where the alleged materials are produced for considering the application, after concluding the proceedings and by following the procedure under Section 340 Cr.P.C.”, it said.
The Court remarked that if every confession statement is believed to be the craft of the investigation officer no case can move forward and it might have been possible for an investigation officer how far a confession can help both the prosecution and the accused in the event of an accused is allowed to be an approver.
“The information about the genuineness of the confession given by the approver turned accused Deenadayalan is something within his knowledge. Without getting any substance of that nature of falsehood from the very mouth of Deenadayalan, some imaginary statement about the reliability of the statement of that accused cannot be made. It is up to the Investigation Officer to get any clue from such statement and proceed or drop further investigation in his best judgment. Even if he makes any wrong judgment on the facts collected by him and file a report to the court, then the ball lies in the court and thereafter it is for the court to appreciate the acceptability of the same by applying its mind before taking cognizance of the same”, it noted.
The Court added that for the mere production of the statements collected, which the CBI believes to be false even before those materials are testified in the trial, an Investigating Officer cannot be charged on several counts of offences, especially on the allegation of fabricating or producing false evidence or false charging.
“In any criminal case filed by a responsible Investigation Officer, if the Court presumes on the representation made by one of the accused that all the materials are false and that the Investigation Officer has to be prosecuted for bringing false evidence, no police officer will dare to investigate any criminal case by discharging his duty as an Investigation Officer. Because any accused can play game with the Investigation Officer by dragging him to criminal charges. It can also go to the extent of initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Officer”, it further observed.
The Court also said that if the Court has not been given with any discretionary power to form its own opinion in order to prefer a Complaint under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), everyone will try to stall the proceedings by making such complaints and undo the investigation already made and render the materials collected inactive.
“There may be an argument that even though the final report filed cannot be treated as a complaint of the court as described under sec.340 Cr.P.C., the report can be still be considered as material for the court to form an opinion at the end of the trial for initiating action for fabricating false evidence before the court. But that can be applicable only if the charge sheet contains any actionable material which might come to the help of the court to form an opinion”, it also noted.
Conclusion
The Court was of the view that the report is like a defence statement basing on the presumption that all those statements and materials available against the police officers are obtained under duress and by blaming the decisions taken by the Petitioner during the course of discharging his duties as the Head of the special team.
“Hence, the final report needs to be quashed in order to ensure that there shall not be any prejudice in the mind of the Court till the main case is disposed and allow the Court to form its own uninfluenced opinion basing on the appreciation of evidence available during the trial”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition and quashed the proceedings against the Petitioner.
Cause Title- A.G. Ponmanickavel v. State through the Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.4583 and 2263 of 2025)
