Madras HC Quashes Charges Against Cashier and Two Staff in Suchindram Temple Fund Case, Finds No Evidence of Independent Role
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan quashed proceedings against three HR and CE employees charged with misappropriating temple funds, holding that prosecution evidence pointed solely to the first accused.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras has quashed criminal proceedings against three employees of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR and CE) Department, Suchindram, Kanyakumari District, who were arraigned as accused Nos. 5, 8 and 12 in a temple fund misappropriation case. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, sitting singly, passed a common order on 16 June 2026 in three connected quashing petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court found that the prosecution's own witnesses and documents established that the bills were fabricated and the scheme was orchestrated entirely by the first accused, leaving no oral or documentary evidence of any independent criminal act by the three petitioners. Continuing the trial against them, the court held, would amount to an abuse of process of law.
The Case Before the Court
The proceedings arose from Crime No. 3 of 2018, registered by the Special Investigation Cell, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai. The FIR, registered on 27 March 2018, named 16 persons. After the death of some accused, the respondent filed a final report against 13 persons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, where the matter was numbered Spl. SC No. 2 of 2024.
The prosecution's case was that the first accused, while working as Deputy Commissioner and Executive Officer in the HR and CE Department, Suchindram, between 7 June 2004 and 30 November 2006, colluded with 12 others to misappropriate temple funds of Rs. 2,96,017 by producing forged bills for expenditure in Paditharam and Thiruvizha festivals during 2004 to 2006. A preliminary enquiry had confirmed the misappropriation before the FIR was registered.
All 13 accused were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Sections 409, 465, 468, 471, 477A and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
The three petitioners filed separate petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Spl. SC No. 2 of 2024 as against them. S. Rameshkumar, a Special Watcher in the HR and CE Department, was arrayed as A.8 (CRL OP No. 15692 of 2024). Tr. N. Kuttalam, a Junior Assistant, was arrayed as A.5 (CRL OP No. 17442 of 2024). Tr. A. Mohana Kumar, a Junior Executive and Manager of Arigesaperumal Temple, Thiruvattar, was arrayed as A.12 (CRL OP No. 17436 of 2024). All three were represented by Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, Senior Counsel. The State was represented by Mr. R. Ganesh Kumar, Counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side).
Since the issue in all three petitions was interlinked and related to the same proceedings in Spl. SC No. 2 of 2024, the court took them up together and passed a common order.
What the Petitioners Argued
Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that even on the prosecution's own case, the role attributed to A.5, A.8 and A.12 was minimal and entirely derivative. A.5, the cashier, merely encashed cheques when they were presented to him and handed the entire amount over to the first accused. A.8 and A.12 were staff members who worked in the temple in various capacities.
The petitioners relied heavily on the statement of L.W.2, the Deputy Commissioner of HR and CE, Kanyakumari District, who deposed that the first accused fabricated the bills and documents and then directed accused Nos. 6 to 13 to come to his office to sign them. According to L.W.2, the first accused sanctioned the bill amounts by issuing cheques and directed that the cheques be counter-signed for encashment. All cheques were encashed by the cashier, and the entire amount was handed over to the first accused.
The petitioners also relied on the statements of L.Ws. 7 to 9, who were shop owners. When the bills of 2004 to 2006 were shown to them on 7 January 2022, they stated that those bills were not issued by their shops. The senior counsel argued that this confirmed the bills were fabricated by the first accused, and that the other accused were compelled and threatened to sign them.
There were 19 cheques in total: one encashed on 11 May 2006, 13 on 28 April 2006, and the remaining on 10 May 2006. The petitioners contended that no oral or documentary evidence had been produced to substantiate any independent charge against them, that the charge sheet lacked bona fides, and that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process.
The State's Response
The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) opposed the petitions. He submitted that all accused, including the petitioners, were charged under Section 120(b) of the IPC for criminal conspiracy. He pointed out that the accused did not dispute their signatures on the bills and other documents. According to the prosecution's case, the accused had claimed their respective expenses before the first accused, who then sanctioned the amounts by issuing cheques. The accused counter-signed the cheques, produced them before the cashier (A.5) for encashment, and thereafter shared the misappropriated amount with the first accused.
The State argued that there was clinching evidence to attract the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC provisions, and that at this stage it was premature to quash the proceedings. The grounds raised by the accused, the State submitted, could only be considered by the trial court after evidence was led. The State pleaded for dismissal of all three petitions.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Ilanthiraiyan examined the prosecution's own material carefully. The court accepted that there were 13 accused in the case and that a sum of Rs. 2,96,017 had been misappropriated through forged bills. The FIR was registered on 27 March 2018 after a preliminary enquiry confirmed the misappropriation.
The court's analysis turned on what the prosecution's witnesses actually said about the three petitioners. L.W.2's deposition, which the court quoted, established that the entire scheme was conceived and executed by the first accused: he fabricated the bills, called accused Nos. 6 to 13 to his office, compelled and threatened them to sign the bills as if they had incurred expenses for the temple festival, issued the cheques, and directed that they be counter-signed for encashment. The cashier (A.5) encashed the cheques and handed the entire sum to the first accused.
The statements of L.Ws. 7 to 9, the shop owners, confirmed that the bills shown to them were not issued by their shops — pointing again to fabrication by the first accused.
The court observed that except L.W.2 and L.Ws. 7 to 9, no witness had spoken about any specific overt act by the petitioners. The court noted that the prosecution's own case, as reflected in the witness statements, was that accused Nos. 6 to 13 were compelled and threatened to sign the bills, and that the cashier merely encashed the cheques and returned the money to the first accused. On this reading, the petitioners had no independent criminal role.
The court held that in order to substantiate the charges, there is absolutely no oral and documentary evidence as against the petitioners. Continuing the trial against them would serve no purpose and would force them to undergo the rigour of trial without any evidentiary basis. The court characterised the continuation of proceedings as tantamount to malafide and an abuse of process of law.
The court was careful to limit its order. It quashed the proceedings only as against the three petitioners — A.5, A.8 and A.12 — and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial against the remaining accused in accordance with law.
Outcome
All three criminal original petitions — CRL OP Nos. 15692, 17442 and 17436 of 2024 — were allowed. The entire proceedings in Spl. CC No. 2 of 2024 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, were quashed as against S. Rameshkumar (A.8), Tr. N. Kuttalam (A.5) and Tr. A. Mohana Kumar (A.12). The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, was directed to proceed with the trial against the other accused in accordance with law.