J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Hereditary Temple Manager, Holds Dispute Was Civil in Nature

The High Court of J&K and Ladakh found that allegations of temple land misappropriation against the hereditary manager of Thakur Dwar Narsingh Ji Maharaj were civil in character, and that the criminal complaint was a clear abuse of process.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has quashed FIR No. 69/2020 registered at Police Station Bani, District Kathua, against Lek Raj Padha, the hereditary Manager (Mohtimam) and Pujari of the Thakur Dwar Narsingh Ji Maharaj temple. Justice M A Chowdhary, sitting singly, allowed the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — the provision akin to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — and held that the allegations of misappropriation of temple property were essentially civil in nature. The court found that filing a criminal complaint in these circumstances amounted to a misuse of the process of law, warranting interference under the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The Temple, the Land Grant, and the Petitioner's Claim

The temple of Shri Narsingh Ji Maharaj at Bani was established by the petitioner's great grandfather. The then ruler of the Princely State of Jammu & Kashmir, Maharaja Pratap Singh, granted land measuring 24 kanals 13 marlas — comprising Khasra Nos. 177, 188, 172, and 158 — in Sankalp as a free grant to the petitioner's great grandfather for the maintenance of the temple and his family.

The managership of the temple is hereditary. It passed from the petitioner's great grandfather Sh. Mani, to Sh. Nandu, then to the petitioner's father Sh. Dewan Chand, and finally to Lek Raj Padha. This succession is documented in the Missal haqiyat for the year 1971–72 Bikrami, and the petitioner's managership was formally recognised by the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 18.06.1991.

As temple expenses grew over the years, the petitioner leased out portions of the land to augment income. He constituted a six-member committee in 2004 to assist in running the temple's affairs and was elected its Chairman. The committee opened a bank account in the name of the temple with J&K Bank Bani, operated jointly by three members including the petitioner, into which all rental and cultivation income was deposited after meeting temple expenses.

The FIR and the Respondent's Allegations

Respondent No. 2, Pranav Sharma, Secretary of the Anti Corruption Society for UT of J&K, filed a written application that was forwarded to Police Station Bani through a dak endorsed by SDPO Basohli vide endorsement No. RDR/Clt/2020/2456/SDPO dated 07.10.2020. On this application, FIR No. 69/2020 was registered on 19.11.2020 under Section 406 IPC, alleging that the petitioner had misappropriated temple income with criminal intent and had allowed encroachment of temple land in connivance with revenue officials.

The petitioner's case was that the respondent had earlier pressurised him to part with a chunk of temple land free of cost, and that the FIR was filed after he refused. The respondents denied this account entirely.

During investigation, the SDM Bani submitted a report to the DC Kathua indicating that total land of 25 kanals 12 marlas, recorded in ownership of Thakurdwara Narsingh Ji Maharaj Mandir Bani under survey numbers 1521/158, 172, 1519/177, 188, and 1523/297 in village Bani, had been substantially encroached upon. Residential houses, shops, and bounded plots had been raised on the land. Fifty-nine such properties were identified. The Tehsildar Bani had earlier reported in September 2019 that persons were constructing buildings on land they claimed to have taken on rent from the temple committee.

Investigation was completed. The police concluded that the petitioner and other accused persons were guilty of an offence under Section 406 IPC and finalised a challan. However, this court had stayed production of the charge sheet by order dated 17.03.2023 pending this petition, after an earlier stay of the investigation granted on 01.05.2022 was vacated.

Arguments Before the Court

Mr. L K Sharma, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, argued that the complainant had no locus standi because he was not an aggrieved person with any interest in the temple. The land, counsel submitted, is ancestral temple land granted by Maharaja Pratap Singh for the specific purpose of temple maintenance, and the petitioner had used it only for that purpose. The FIR, he contended, was a sheer abuse of process and ought to be quashed.

The Government Advocate, Mr. Suneel Malhotra, appearing for Respondent No. 1, opposed the petition on the ground that the court's scope for interference in investigation under Section 482 CrPC is narrow, and that the impugned FIR had been made out after proper inquiry. He relied on the SDM's report documenting encroachments and the finalized challan.

Counsel for Respondent No. 2, Mr. Harsh Dubey, contended that the petition was not maintainable because disputed questions of fact were involved; that the SDM's enquiry had unequivocally shown criminal breach of trust; and that the petitioner had concealed material facts from the court, including the SDM report, and therefore did not deserve discretionary relief. The respondent further argued that the petitioner was only a manager and not the hereditary owner, so the property vested in the deity, not in him.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Chowdhary examined the character of the dispute carefully. The petitioner is admittedly the Manager of the temple, and the land in question is recorded in the ownership of the Thakurdwara — granted in Sankalp by Maharaja Pratap Singh. The petitioner claims hereditary rights over both the management and the land appurtenant to the temple, and also claims entitlement to use the land for the temple's maintenance.

The court observed that all the allegations — misappropriation of temple land through leasing, sale, or allowing encroachment — arise in the context of a person who is unquestionably the temple's manager. Whether the petitioner has exceeded his authority or misused trust property in that capacity is a question that goes to the nature and extent of his rights, and to the accounts of the temple — matters that require examination in a civil forum.

The court held that if the complainant or any other person had an interest in preserving the temple property, “they could avail the civil jurisdiction either by filing a civil suit or a writ petition before the competent courts instead of filing a criminal complaint.” The court noted that the complainant bypassed the civil remedy entirely and went straight to criminal law, making allegations of misappropriation that, on their face, touched a property and management dispute of civil character.

On the question of the court's power to act, Justice Chowdhary acknowledged that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised very sparingly and cautiously. But he held that where there is a clear misuse of process, the court is obliged to step in to secure the ends of justice. The combination of a civil property dispute, a complainant whose locus was itself questionable, and the evident use of criminal machinery to achieve what was properly a civil remedy, brought the case within the category where interference was warranted.

Outcome

By judgment pronounced on 16 July 2026, Justice M A Chowdhary allowed CRM(M) No. 324/2022 and quashed FIR No. 69/2020 dated 19.11.2020 registered at Police Station Bani, District Kathua, under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner Lek Raj Padha. The judgment is marked as speaking and reportable.