Kailashpuri Temple Incident: Rajasthan HC Drops Charge Of 'Grievous Injury' From FIR Against Security Guards

The Rajasthan High Court has dropped the charge of grievous injury from the FIR registered against Security Guards in the backdrop of an incident at Kailashpuri Temple involving a Judicial Officer.

The Court was dealing with a petition seeking quashing of the FIR itself.

A single-bench of Justice Arun Monga observed, "A perusal of the above reflects that in the present case there is complete absence of any allegations in the FIR with regard to any grievous injury and its ingredients are lacking. Assertions of learned Public Prosecutor noted in preceding part reveal that investigation has already concluded. Upon completion thereof, charge sheet against 5 named persons therein (factual report) is proposed. At this stage, it would therefore not be appropriate for this Court to go into merits of other allegations. In the premise, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and as an upshot of discussion recorded herein above, and in view of the factual report, supra, Section 117(2) of BNS (corresponding Section 325 of IPC) invoked in the FIR No.0452/2024 dated 13.08.2024 registered at Police Station Sukher, Udaipur is directed to be dropped."

The petitioners was represented by Senior Advocate Puneet Jain assisted by Advocate Mohd. Aslam Naushad, Advocate Sheetal Kumbhat while the respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Anand Purohit assisted by Advocate Ranjeet Joshi, Public Prosecutor Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, AGA R.S. Bhati.

The Complainant, wife of a serving Judicial officer in the State of Rajasthan was visiting the Eklingji Temple at Kailashpuri (Udaipur) with her husband on August 13, 2024 when the alleged incident occurred. The complainant's husband, a Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate allegedly falsely claimed himself to be a High Court judge and intruded into the queue of devotees. Notwithstanding, when he was asked to follow the discipline, he became rather abusive and also engaged in a heated exchange with the temple security. He even attempted to assault the security personnel, leading to a scuffle, which was captured on the temple's CCTV.

It was pleaded further that reviewing the CCTV footage shows that Shri Sharma instigated the incident while visiting the temple with his family and friends. It was stated that the temple administration was not informed of his visit in advance; had they been notified, special arrangements could have been made for his visit. Despite the large number of devotees due to the Savan month, he chose to jump the queue which resulted in the unsavory incident. 

It was pleaded that subsequently with an intent to discredit the temple administration, Shri Sharma, through his wife lodged the false FIR which is assailed herein. Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated on the basis of baseless allegations as no offence, as alleged is made out against the petitioners. He argued that although the FIR alleges offenses under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including rioting and assault, but the evidence shows that the alleged incidents did not occur as described and relied on pen drive containing the CCTV footage and video recordings in support of his contention that the FIR is frivolous and motivated by ulterior intentions.

He further urged that the complainant's husband, misusing his position as a Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, has got a false FIR registered. He contended that the FIR is based on false and fabricated facts, due to a personal vendetta on being merely asked to wait in the queue. He accused the Judicial Officer of putting his wife on the forefront to act proxy for him to institute criminal proceedings.

The Court at the outset noted that whether or not allegations leveled by the complainant are false or not is a matter of trial and shall be decided by the competent trial Court upon filing of the charge sheet which is proposed as per the factual report, ibid.

The Court, however was strictly of the view that no ingredients of Section 117(2) of BNS (corresponding Section 325 of IPC) are made out.

The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Chatar Singh Chouhan vs. State Of Rajasthan (2024:RJ-JD:41509 IR)

Appearances:

Petitioners- Senior Advocate Puneet Jain assisted by Advocate Mohd. Aslam Naushad, Advocate Sheetal Kumbhat

Respondents- Senior Advocate Anand Purohit assisted by Advocate Ranjeet Joshi, Public Prosecutor Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, AGA R.S. Bhati

Click here to read/ download order: