The court emphasized the need for thorough investigation to determine the identity and ownership of the suspected idols, and exercised its inherent powers sparingly.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for records in Cr.No.75 of 2018 dated 02.03.2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Town West Police Station, Thanjavur, 1st respondent herein, for the offence under Sections 454, 380, 403, 409, 411 and 120B IPC, which has been subsequently made over to the idol wing namely the second respondent herein and further pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.885 of Home SC Department dated 01.08.2018 the above crime has been transferred to the CBI, the third respondent herein and quash the same.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the case in Cr.No.75 of 2018 registered against the petitioner by the first respondent and now pending with the third respondent.

2. Originally the first respondent police registered the case in Crime No.75 of 2018 against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 454, 380, 403, 409, 411 and 120(b) IPC, which is now pending with the third respondent for further investigation.

3. The crux of the prosecution case, as found in the impugned FIR is that 2 idols i.e., Raja Raja Cholan and Logamahadevi idols displayed for public view in the Sarabhai Foundation''s Museum is alleged to be that of the idols unlawfully removed from the Tanjore Bragatheeswarar Temple in late 1960s.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is the case of the prosecution that the two idols were stolen in the Temple in late 1960s, whereas, the two idols were in the safe custody from the year 1942 and the same were sent to the Royal Academy of Arts, London, during 1947-48 for exhibition and thereafter safely returned, which is also proved. The petitioner Foundation is a charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Trust Act 1950.

4.1. The first respondent without even any written complaint, registered the case after 50 years of the alleged occurrence of theft of two idols and after registration of the case, managed to get an order of search and seized the two idols on 29.05.2018 alleging that the same were kept in unlawful custody by the petitioner Foundation.

4.2. The principal witness, Kudavayil M.Balasubramanian, while recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has relied on the book authored by an expert Mr.R.Nagaswamy, who mentioned the height of the two idols kept in the the Tanjore Brahadeeswarar Temple as 56.8cm and 46.8 respectively, but, the same expert in other book has mentioned the heights of the idols kept in the petitioner Foundation as 74 cm and 53.5 cm respectively, which itself clearly proves that the idols stolen from the Temple and the idols kept in the petitioner Foundation are not one and same.

4.3. The learned senior counsel quoting the method of purchasing the two idols, contended that if the two idols were stolen by the petitioner as alleged by the prosecution, it is against common sense to place the stolen articles in the public view in a museum. As per the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, unless there are specific allegation against an individual for a commission of non-cognizable offence, the investigation agency cannot name a person as an offender. In the present case, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner except the allegation that the idols are found in the Museum, which does not constitute an offence.

4.4. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the petitioner and Sarabhai family has contributed monetarily in the field of science, literature and art to the society and there is no motive to acquire any property in a manner not known to law. Hence, the present case registered against the petitioner has to be quashed.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the two idols were stolen from the Tanjore Brahadeeswarar Temple and the same were displayed in the petitioners Museum and hence after obtaining necessary orders, the same were seized and present case was re