Back
Letter to Not Substitute for :
Dismissing a over allegedly missing temple idols, the has firmly reiterated that a letter to the Chief Minister’s Cell cannot replace the established procedure under the .
A Division Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Sakthivel on , rejected a filed by Raja, a social activist, seeking a probe into the disappearance of two idols from the Arulmighu Kalatheeswarar Abirami Temple in Dindigul.
A Complaint That Went Astray
The petitioner claimed that two idols – a Karudalvar Idol and a Bala Durgai Amman idol attached to pillars – were missing from the temple, also known as the Abirami Amman Temple. Instead of lodging a formal complaint with the police, he sent a letter to the Chief Minister’s Cell. That letter was subsequently forwarded to the , which issued the impugned communication.
The petitioner then approached the High Court directly with a , seeking to quash that communication and transfer the investigation to the .
Court's Firm Reminder on Legal Procedure
The Bench was unequivocal in its view that a cannot be a shortcut to bypass the statutory criminal justice process. The court noted that the proper course under the requires a complainant to first approach the appropriate investigating agency, and if no action is taken, to then seek remedies before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
“The procedure known to law has to be followed by the petitioner and by everybody else,” the court observed. “Merely issuing a letter to the and then filing a would not advance the cause of the petitioner herein.”
Respondent's Contention: Idols Are Still There
Significantly, the court also recorded the submission of the first respondent – the – that the two idols are actually available in the temple. They are not being worshipped only because of damage, the state contended.
Liberty to Follow
While dismissing the , the court granted the petitioner liberty to pursue a properly filed in accordance with law. The judges clarified that their observations would not influence any investigating agency or court that might deal with such a complaint in future.
“We would grant liberty to the petitioner to follow the procedure as established by law with respect to the same issue in proper manner,” the order stated.
Key Takeaways
The judgment serves as a clear reminder that is not a substitute for the mechanism. It underscores the importance of following the – from the police to the Magistrate – before invoking the High Court's .
The court's decision also highlights that a letter to the , however well-intentioned, does not trigger the formal investigative machinery that a would. For individuals seeking action on alleged offences, the provides the only legal pathway.
