Saturday, February 7, 2026
National

Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders FIR and Full-Scale Probe in TTD Parakamani Theft Case

HDFC LIFE C2PS

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has issued a major directive in the ongoing Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) Parakamani theft case, instructing the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to register an FIR and carry out a transparent, structured investigation. The order marks a critical development in what has become one of the most scrutinized cases related to temple administration, law enforcement processes, and the handling of institutional donations.

Background of the Parakamani Theft Case

The case dates back to April 29, 2023, when C.V. Ravi Kumar, an employee of a mutt affiliated with TTD, was allegedly caught stealing $900 from the Parakamani hall—the highly secured donation-counting centre of the world-renowned temple. Initially, a theft case was registered at the local police station.
However, within a short period, the matter shifted from criminal investigation to mediation, landing in a Lok Adalat where a controversial compromise settlement was arranged. Under this deal, the accused allegedly agreed to donate seven properties valued at approximately ₹40 crore as restitution.

The unusual shift from criminal proceedings to a mediated settlement raised concerns about due process, institutional accountability, and the independence of the investigation.

Court’s Directive for FIR and Fresh Probe

In response to continuing concerns, the High Court has now ordered the CID and ACB to initiate a formal FIR and begin a detailed investigation into all aspects of the case. This includes:

  • The original theft incident
  • The assets of the accused
  • The circumstances of the Lok Adalat settlement
  • Whether due legal procedure was followed during mediation
  • Any institutional lapses or influence
  • The chain of custody of evidence

The court emphasized that the investigation must be thorough and transparent, with no scope for procedural gaps.

HDFC LIFE C2PS

Suspicious Death of Complainant Draws Court Attention

The High Court has also taken serious note of the death of Y. Satish Kumar, the de facto complainant who was part of the TTD Vigilance Department at the time of the incident. His body was found on November 14 beside a railway track in Anantapur district, raising questions about the circumstances surrounding his death.

The court directed the CID to submit Satish Kumar’s postmortem report in a sealed cover within three days, reflecting the sensitivity of the matter and the need to preserve forensic integrity.

Investigation Expands to Former TTD Officials

As part of the ongoing probe, the CID has already questioned several former TTD officials who were in office during the period of the alleged theft and settlement. These include:

  • Former TTD chairman B. Karunakar Reddy
  • Former TTD chairman Y.V. Subba Reddy
  • Former TTD Executive Officer A.V. Dharma Reddy

The testimonies and documents collected from these officials are expected to play a significant role in understanding administrative actions taken in the aftermath of the theft.

Court Orders Inter-Agency Coordination

To strengthen the investigation, the High Court has directed both the CID and ACB to share all collected evidence and findings with each other. The court has also stated that the agencies may coordinate with the Income Tax Department and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) if required.

This inter-agency collaboration ensures:

  • Examination of financial trails
  • Assessment of asset declarations
  • Transparency in handling movable and immovable properties
  • Detection of any potential money laundering angles

The objective is to ensure the probe covers both the criminal and financial dimensions of the case.

Next Steps and Upcoming Hearing

The case will be heard again on December 16, where the court is expected to review the status of the investigation, the sealed-cover postmortem report, and updates on FIR registration.

As the inquiry proceeds, the spotlight remains on procedural fairness and institutional accountability, especially given the prominence of TTD and the public interest associated with temple funds.

What's your reaction?

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts