Inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR is not to be exercised when the petition involves disputed questions of fact regarding the identity of an antiquity, despite the existence of a registration certificate under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, as such matters require thorough investigation and potential trial.

ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

The present Criminal Original Petition invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of the First Information Report in Crime No.23 of 2021 dated 30.12.2021 on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The case projects an intriguing intersection between criminal investigation, antiquarian heritage, private religious possession, statutory registration under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, and the constitutional balance between preservation of national heritage and protection of individual liberty.

3. The petition concerns a “Maragathalingam”, asserted by the petitioner to be an ancestral family deity and a duly registered antiquity under Section 16 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. The prosecution, however, disputes not merely the lawful custody, but the very identity of the idol covered under the registration certificate, alleging material discrepancies in measurements and circumstances warranting continued investigation.

4. The matter therefore requires this Court to carefully examine the limits of inherent jurisdiction in FIR quash proceedings, particularly where disputed questions touching identity, provenance, historical ownership, and possible fabrication of supporting documents are yet to be investigated.

Case of the prosecution:

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.12.2021, the second respondent police received secret information that an antique idol was unlawfully kept at the residence situated at B2, Langval Homes, Arulanandha Nagar, Thanjavur. Acting upon such information, the respondent police conducted a search at the said premises and enquired the petitioner regarding the existence of any antique idol in his custody. The petitioner is stated to have informed the police that his father possessed one “Maragathalingam” and that the same was kept in a bank locker.

6. Thereafter, upon communication with his father over cellphone, the petitioner allegedly retrieved the said Maragathalingam from the bank locker and produced it before the respondent police. The prosecution would further state that when the petitioner was questioned regarding the source of the Maragathalingam and called upon to produce documents substantiating lawful possession, he failed to furnish satisfactory explanation or documentary proof. Consequently, suspecting unlawful possession, the respondent police seized the Maragathalingam under a mahazar in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer and witnesses.

7. The seized idol was described as measuring 8 cm in height, 11.6 cm in breadth, 24 cm in circumference and weighing approximately 530 grams, with visible damage in portions of the structure.

8. The FIR came to be registered for the offences under Sections 41(1)(d) and 102 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Sections 35 and 102 BNSS, relating to suspicious possession and seizure of suspected property. During investigation, according to the respondent police, serious doubts arose regarding the genuineness of the petitioner’s claim that the idol seized was the same idol for which a registration certificate had been obtained from the Archaeological Survey of India under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.

9. The prosecution specifically relies upon discrepancy in measurements between the idol covered by the registration certificate and the idol actually seized. The registration certificate allegedly refers to an idol measuring 7.62 cm in height and 22.86 cm in width weighing 534 grams, whereas the idol seized measured 8 cm in height, 11.6 cm in width and 530 grams in weight.

10. The respondent police further contend that the so-called surrender/release deed allegedly executed by one Narayana Sastrigal in favour of the petitioner’s father is an unregistered and suspicious document lacking attestation and authenticity. According to the prosecution, investigation