Madras HC Quashes CBI’s FIR Against Ex-Idol Wing IG Ponmanickavel

The bench of Justice R.N. Manjula passed the order on two connected petitions filed by Ponmanickavel. Court observed that the criminal proceedings against him stemmed from a flawed process. Court stressed that when an FIR is registered on the basis of a judicially ordered preliminary enquiry, the accused is entitled to know the contents of that enquiry before being proceeded against.

The case traces back to 2019, when Kader Batcha, a former police officer himself facing idol theft allegations, petitioned the High Court seeking action against Ponmanickavel. Court directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry. That enquiry, concluded only in 2024, alleged that Ponmanickavel had framed Batcha in criminal cases, fabricated documents, and engaged in wrongful arrest and intimidation. On this basis, the CBI registered an FIR in August 2024.

Ponmanickavel, however, challenged both the FIR and the denial of access to the preliminary report. He argued that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, wrongly rejected his request for a copy of the report, which formed the very foundation of the FIR. He also contended that the proceedings contravened earlier division bench orders, which categorically directed that no action against him or his team could be initiated without the concurrence of the High Court.

The High Court agreed with his submissions. It noted that the State had earlier given Ponmanickavel a clean record when he was appointed Special Officer in 2018, lauding his efforts in recovering several ancient idols worth crores.

“A person who was considered as a hero has been reversed to a villain now. And that too on a complaint given by the second respondent who has already been shown as an accused in one of the cases registered against him,” the bench remarked, highlighting the irony of the situation.

On the issue of the preliminary report, court held that the refusal to share the report could not be justified, since it was neither classified as confidential nor privileged.

“Furnishing information about the charges is not an empty formality but a necessary element of natural justice,” Justice Manjula said.

Denying the accused this material deprived him of the opportunity to defend himself and even to move for quashing the FIR effectively, she noted. 

Court also criticised the CBI for bypassing the directions issued in earlier writ proceedings. It recalled that any action against the petitioner or his team was subject to the court’s permission. By filing an FIR without seeking such leave, the agency had acted in contravention of binding judicial orders, court opined. 

Relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings in Bhajan Lal and Lalita Kumari, court reiterated that quashing of FIRs is warranted when allegations do not disclose an offence or when proceedings amount to abuse of process. In this case, both the FIR and the subsequent charge sheet were found to lack legality and sustainability.

"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," court held. 

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the ACJM’s refusal to provide the report, directed that Ponmanickavel be furnished with a copy, and quashed the FIR along with the charge sheet.

Case Title: A.G.Ponmanickavel vs State and Another

Order Date: September 26, 2025

Bench: Justice R.N. Manjula