Rajasthan High Court: In a petition seeking quashment of charges filed against Eklingji Temple, Kailashpuri security personnel, a single-judge bench of Arun Monga, J., emphasised that the sufficiency of evidence for the allegations is a matter for the trial court, but partly allowed the petition, quashed Section 117(2)1 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) based on the lack of grievous injury and directed to proceed with remaining charges.
In the instant matter, on 13-08-2024, an altercation occurred at the Eklingji Temple in Kailashpuri between temple security personnel (petitioners) and the complainant’s husband, who is a Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Allegedly, the complainant’s husband misrepresented himself as a High Court judge and attempted to bypass the queue. When security personnel directed him to follow temple protocol, a heated argument ensued, followed by a scuffle, captured on CCTV. The complainant’s wife alleged that her husband and accompanying family members were physically and verbally abused by the temple guards, leading to injuries. She also claimed that the guards acted indecently toward her, touching her inappropriately.
However, the petitioners’ argued that the FIR, based on false and fabricated claims, is motivated by a personal vendetta due to the complainant’s husband’s behavior. The petitioners contended that the complainant’s husband abused his position, instigated the conflict and lodged a false FIR through his wife to harm the temple administration’s reputation. It was contended that the CCTV footage shows the complainant’s husband as the aggressor and contradicts the complainant’s allegations of inappropriate conduct.
The Court opined 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.
After investigation, the prosecution concluded that certain Sections of the BHS, initially invoked, do not apply. The factual report recommended charges under specific BNS sections corresponding to minor offenses. The Public Prosecutor submitted that only Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2)/(3), and related sections of the BNS should proceed, and Section 117(2) (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) should be dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence.
The Court noted that there were no allegations in the FIR substantiating grievous injury, thus failing to meet the requirements for Section 117(2) of BNS, 2023. The Court held that allegations of minor injuries or simple hurt would proceed as per the prosecution’s factual report, which did not substantiate severe harm as claimed.
The Court directed the dismissal of Section 117(2) of BNS, 2023, from the FIR due to lack of evidence but allowed charges under remaining sections to proceed. For the remaining charges, being bailable, the Court permitted bail on a personal bond should the petitioners be formally arrested.
[Chatar Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3264, Decided on 09-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Puneet Jain, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mohd. Aslam Naushad and Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP; Mr. R.S. Bhati, AGA; Mr. Himanshu Singh, SHO (P.S.- Sukher, District Udaipur) and Mr. Harish Chandra Sanadhya, ASI / I.O. (P.S.-Sukher, District Udaipur), Counsel for the Respondents
1. Section 325 of the IPC.