Karnataka High Court
Sri. P N Prasanna Kumar vs Sri. P N Narasinga Rao on 27 April, 2018
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.67/2018
Between:
Sri. P.N. Prasanna Kumar,
S/o P.N. Gopala Krishna Rao,
Aged about 45 years,
The President,
Shree Mahalingeshwara
Mahaganapathy Temple
Perampalli, Udupi Taluk,
Udupi District - 576 104. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Prasanna V.R, Advocate)
And:
Sri. P.N.Narasinga Rao
S/o Late P.N. Ramakrishna Rao,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at 'Gayathri Nilaya',
House No.1-367,
Korangrapady Post,
Udupi Taluk & District - 574 118. ... Respondent
(By Sri. Sandesh.J.Choute, SPP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the Order dated 09.11.2017 in
Crl.R.P.No.82/2016 passed by the learned Principal Sessions
-2-
Judge, Udupi District, Udupi, in so far as directing return of
articles to the custody of the Assistant Commissioner of
Hindu Religious Endowment and Charitable Institutions of
Udupi District.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner, being aggrieved by order passed in Crl.R.P. No.82/2016 dated 09.11.2017 by Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi District, Udupi, is seeking for quashing of said order in so far as order directing respondent to return the articles to the custody of the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowment and Charitable Institutions of Udupi District, within one month from the date of said order for the smooth functioning of temple.
2. Heard Sri. Prasanna V.R, learned counsel appearing for petitioner. Perused the records. -3-
3. Revision petitioner Sri. P.N.Prasanna Kumar, who was appointed as the President of Managing Committee of Shree Mahalingeshwara Mahaganapathy Temple, Perampalli, Udupi Taluk and District for the period from 15.03.2013 to 14.03.2016 (three years), filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Section 415, 416, 420, 403, 405, 504 and 506 of IPC against respondent herein contending inter-alia that he is the President of temple by virtue of memorandum issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowment and Charitable Institutions of Udupi District on 15.06.2013 and even prior to that, he was the President and respondent was the Managing Trustee of temple and was looking after the affairs of said temple. It was further alleged that respondent had misappropriated the income of temple for his personal needs and temple is having vast movable and immovable properties and -4- was administered by the committee headed by the complainant. It is alleged that accused had carried away the entire schedule properties to his residence except item Nos.49 to 57 of the schedule annexed to application filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C and had kept the said items in the office room under lock and key of committee of temple. It was further alleged that accused though assured to handover the key of said room had failed to handover the same including Books of Accounts, Passbook etc., in spite of accused being requested in writing specifically. It was also alleged that the Assistant Commissioner had directed the accused to hand over the said properties to the complainant and even then, he had failed to do so. Hence, petitioner in his private complaint sought for the matter being referred to investigation by jurisdictional police who, after registering FIR on complaint being referred by jurisdictional court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, -5- conducted search and seizure of movable properties mentioned in schedule to the complaint. Hence, on 18.09.2013, complainant P.N.Narasinga Rao respondent herein filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the aforesaid articles, which was allowed by trial Court with a direction to the complainant to execute an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with one surety. On B report being filed in the said case, complainant i.e. petitioner having filed application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C for releasing 8 items, which came to be allowed by order dated 18.06.2014 and ordered for release of said articles to the interim custody of the complainant on executing an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety.
4. When the matter stood thus, accused filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C on 01.06.2016, for release of aforesaid articles to his custody contending that he is the custodian of said -6- articles and being President of said temple. Said application was allowed on 07.10.2016 by trial Court and as such petitioner was directed to handover the aforesaid articles to interim custody of accused on executing an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with one surety.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed Crl.R.P. No.82/2016. Revisional Court after perusing the entire records and earlier orders has noticed that tenure of petitioner's appointment as President of Trust was for a limited period of three years commencing from 15.03.2013 and had ended on 14.03.2016 and as such, petitioner had no authority to claim custody of aforesaid articles. Revisional Court has also rightly held that Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowment and Charitable Institutions of Udupi District is the proper authority and as such, prayer of accused has also been turned out on the ground that -7- accused has not placed any record to show that he is entitled for the aforesaid articles.
6. In these circumstances, learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that it is just and necessary to handover the aforesaid articles to the custody of the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowment and Charitable Institutions of Udupi District for smooth functioning of day-to-day affairs of said temple.
7. As rightly pointed out by learned sessions judge, neither petitioner nor accused is entitled for interim custody of the aforesaid articles. Though both of them have claimed the said articles as if it belongs to them, learned judge has rightly turned down the said request. Even otherwise, interim custody of the said articles has rightly not been handed over to petitioner for the reason that tenure of the petitioner as President of temple has already ended on 14.03.2016 itself. -8-
8. In that view of the matter, I find no error committed by the Revisional Court calling for interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, petition stands rejected.
In view of petition having been rejected, IA No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and it is rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE PYR/PS