The High Court of Punjab and Haryana while quashing the summoning order against the petitioner accused under Section 295 IPC held that the desecration of the Samadh of a family member would not amount to the offence of defiling a place of worship or sacred object under Section 295, IPC and a Samadh of a family member cannot constitute a place of worship held sacred by a class of persons.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed the present plea under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the criminal complaint filed by a brother against his sister under Sections 452, 379, 295, 435, 506, 148, 149,120-B IPC and the Summoning order under Sections 148, 295 read with Section 149 IPC passed by the JMIC, Moga, Punjab. The dispute pertained to ancestral property between a brother and sister. The land was transferred to the sister by her father. The brother filed a criminal complaint with multiple allegations including accusations of desecration to the Samadhs of a common ancestor.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the complaint and the summon order was an abuse of process of law and deserved to be quashed. Further, it was contended that there was no allegation against the petitioner with regards to offence under Section 295 IPC and there is absolutely no allegation in the complaint that the Samadhs of the common ancestor of the petitioner. Further, it was contended that even if the said Samadh were destroyed no offence under Section 295 IPC was made out as a Samadh cannot, ordinarily be treated as a temple in view of the judgments in the case of Saraswathi Ammal & another versus Rajagopal Ammal and Committee of Management of Institution known as Bodendraswami Mutt by its Managing Member N. Ganesa Iyer Versus President of Board of Commrs. for Hindu Religious Endowments.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the offence had been established beyond reasonable doubt and once the petitioners had been summoned to face Trial, the question of interference by this Court would be in rare circumstances as disputed questions of fact had arisen. stated that
Observations of the court:
The court referred to the judgement in Saraswathi Ammal & another v. Rajagopal Ammal, wherein it was held that the building of a samadhi or a tomb over the remains of a person and the making of provision for the purpose of Gurupooja and other ceremonies in connection with the same cannot be recognised as charitable or religious purpose according to Hindu law. This is not on the ground that such a dedication is for a superstitious use and hence invalid.
Further, the court stated that it is established in the civil proceedings that the land was in the possession of the petitioner where the alleged incidents took place and stated that this act has deliberately not been disclosed in the complaint for obvious reasons. Had it been brought to the notice of the Summoning court, the possibility of the impugned order being passed under Sections 148/149/120-B IPC would have been unlikely. Therefore, no offence under Sections 148 & 149 IPC is made out.
Further, the court observed that the desecration of Samadh of a family member would not amount to an offence of desecration under Section 295, IPC and even otherwise, there are no allegations against the petitioners regarding destruction, defilement or damage to the Samadh. Therefore, no offence under Section 295 IPC is made out on the admitted facts on the record.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order.
Case Title: Krishna Devi and ors. vs Lal Chand and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
Case No.: CRM-M-42292-2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Puneet Bali and Mr. Shivam Sharma
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. K.R Dhawan
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
