VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Monday ordered a CID probe into the controversial settlement of a theft case involving Rs 72,000 ($ 900) stolen from the Parakamani of Sri Lord Venkateswara Swamy Temple at Tirumala.
Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad issued interim directions to the CID to investigate the roles of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) Board, its officials, the investigating officer, and the complainant.
The court also asked the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to examine the assets of the accused, CV Ravikumar, and his family to determine whether they were acquired with money stolen from the Parakamani. Further, the court directed both the CID and ACB chiefs to submit detailed investigation reports through the Registrar (Judicial) before the next hearing on December 2.
The case dates back to April 29, 2023, when Ravikumar, a clerk at Tirumala mutt, was caught red-handed stealing $900 from the Parakamani hall by AVSO Satish Kumar, who later lodged a complaint.
Parakamani case: HC finds fault with cops & magistrate
The case was subsequently compromised in the Lok Adalat, prompting Tirupati Vartha editor M Srinivasulu to file a petition in the High Court earlier this year.
While hearing the petition, Justice Ramakrishna Prasad criticised the investigating officer for registering the case under IPC Sections 379 and 381, which are compoundable, instead of Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant), which is non-compoundable. The court noted that Ravikumar, being a TTD employee, qualified as a public servant, and the wrong application of sections enabled the compromise.
The court referred the legality of the Lok Adalat’s compromise order — through which the case was settled between the accused and the complainant — to a two-judge bench and instructed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice. It also directed that a copy of the Lok Adalat order be included in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the then Tirupati II Additional Judicial Magistrate who approved the compromise.
Calling the lapses by both the investigating officer and magistrate ‘serious in nature’, the judge observed that the TTD Board’s approval was mandatory before any compromise could be made in cases involving temple property. “Once a devotee donates money to the Lord, it becomes temple property. Only the TTD Board, on behalf of the deity, can decide on any compromise,” the judge remarked.
