TN Idol Theft Case | Madras High Court Quashes CBI Case Against Ex-IPS Officer Ponmanickavel, Says FIR Lacks Materials
The Madras High Court has quashed a case initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation against former IPS officer Ponmanickavel, who was heading the idol theft wing of the CID in the state of Tamil Nadu.
Justice RN Manjula observed that the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet did not disclose any allegations committed by Ponmanickavel and were non est and redundant. The court also noted that the FIR had been registered in excess of authority without getting any permission from the High Court. In an earlier proceeding, while disposing of a petition alleging excess use of force by the officer, the court had ordered that any future case against the officer in connection with the case should be after getting the High Court's approval.
“Both the FIR and the charge sheet on the face of it do not disclose any materials to sustain the charges made against the petitioner. Even if the allegations in the charge sheet are uncontroverted, the guilt of the accused cannot be proved. The FIR itself is non-est and redundant, as it has been registered not only in excess of the authority of the first respondent without seeking permission from this court in pursuant to the earlier directions given by the Hon'ble Division in W.Ps. 20392 and 20363/2018. And further the court also cannot act upon by taking cognizance of the charge sheet in view of the bar under sec.195 Cr.P.C,” the court observed.
The court noted that the investigation was transferred to the CBI based on the complaint of one Kader Batcha, who was also an accused in the investigation carried out by Ponmanickavel. The court observed that if courts were to accept the representations made by accused person in every case claiming that the documents produced are false, no police officer would dare to investigate any criminal case by discharging his duty.
“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,” the court said.
At the same time, the court added that it was not oblivious to the misuse of power by wicked police officers against innocent persons. The court added that if any person was aggrieved by the misuse of power by officers, he could seek a remedy as per the due process of law. The court noted that such a victim could apply to a discharge or quash the criminal proceedings by showing a lack of materials. The court also added that if a police officer causes any violation of human rights, a complaint can also be filed against the same.
The court also added that if a person is forced to undergo trial on false charges, he can apply to the court, after the conclusion of trial, praying to take action against the person who produced false evidence. The court also remarked that since this check and balance mechanism was available under law, no action is taken on the allegation of false evidence before the conclusion of trial. In the present case however, the court noted that such an allegation was gone into before the conclusion of the trial, and the investigation was also handed over to the CBI.
“If the court has not been given with any discretionary power to form its own opinion in order to prefer a complaint under sec.195 Cr.P.C., every one will try to stall the proceedings by making such complaints and undo the investigation already made and render the materials collected inactive,” the court noted.
The court made the observations in petitions filed by Ponmanickavel against the Judicial Magistrate's refusal to provide him copies of the preliminary enquiry report. Ponmanickavel had also filed a petition to quash the FIR registered against him by the CBI.
The investigation into the idol thefts was transferred to the CBI on an application filed by Kader Batcha, who was serving as an Inspector of Police and was subsequently arrayed as an additional accused in the theft. Following this, the CBI had filed a preliminary report before the Magistrate's court. Though Ponmanickavel requested a copy of this preliminary report, he was denied the same, against which he approached the court. While this case was pending, the CBI filed the chargesheet. Hence, Ponmanickavel filed the second plea for quashing the FIR.
Ponmanickavel had been charged with offences under Section 167 [public servant framing an incorrect document with an intent to cause injury], 193[punishment for fabricating false evidence for the purpose of using it in any stage of the judicial proceedings], 195A [threatening or inducing a person to give false evidence], 196[using evidence known to be false], 211[false charge of offence made with an intent to injure], 218[public servant framing incorrect record or writing with an intent to save person from punishment], 506[punishment for criminal intimidation] of IPC. It was argued that Ponmanickavel had intimidared individuals and procured false evidence and witness statements which were filed before the courts.
The court noted that there was nothing to show that the officer had filed false documents or statements of witnesses. The court added that the exercise of public authority by Ponmanickavel, who was investigating the alleged offences at the time could not be called as commission of offence. “No calculated attempt can be allowed to destabilize the progress made by the special team in the cases involving idol theft handled by them,” the court said.
Thus, finding no materials, the court quashed the chargesheet filed against Ponmanickavel.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar Senior Counsel for Mr. M. Pozhilan for M/s. Arulvadivel Associates
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. K. Srinivasan Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Mohideen Basha Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. L. Infant Dinesh
Case Title: A.G Ponmanickavel v. State and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
Case No: Crl.OP.(MD) No.4583/2025