High Court Refuses to Quash Temple-rioting Proceedings, Directs Trial Court to Consider Discharge Application

A single-judge bench of Justice C.S. Dias heard a challenge to criminal proceedings in Crl.M.C. No. 3726 of 2023 arising from C.C. No. 589 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, Perambra, which originated from Crime No. 224 of 2022 registered at Atholi Police Station. The petitioners sought quashing of charges under Sections 143, 147, 153 and 448 read with Section 149 IPC, alleging that they entered the sanctum sanctorum of Mappurath Sree Bhagavathy Temple, pulled out the priest, disrupted prayers and committed rioting to promote enmity.

The High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition and refused to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. The Court held that the allegations in the FIR and the final report, if taken at face value, prima facie constituted offences that required adjudication at trial and therefore this was "not a fit case to exercise the inherent powers" of the High Court. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is well settled that this Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash criminal proceedings. However, such inherent power, though expansive in nature, is not unbridled or unlimited. They are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and within the parameters delineated by judicial precedents. One of the elementary principles to quash a criminal proceeding is that, even if allegations in the first information report, final report or the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same will not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (Read the decisions in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and Others [(2023) 18 SCC 399], Daxaben v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2022) 16 SCC 117] and Monica Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [(2008) 8 SCC 781])." The Court noted recent authority that the power under Section 482 was "extraordinary, but must be exercised sparingly" and concluded the petition was "devoid of any merit."

Background

The prosecution alleged that on 21 July 2022 at about 1900 hours the petitioners, together with other identifiable persons and in furtherance of common intention, entered the sanctum sanctorum of the family temple, pulled out the priest, disrupted prayers, committed rioting and promoted enmity among groups. The petitioners contended that they were members of the Mappurath family and office-bearers of the Mappurath Kudumba Trust which controlled the temple and its rituals; they produced documents including a settlement deed, possession certificate and tax receipts to assert proprietary and managerial rights and pleaded political motivation and delay in registration of the FIR as indicia of false implication. The State and the defacto complainant opposed quashing, pointing to specific allegations in the FIR and the final report that, if accepted at trial, prima facie established offences.

The High Court reviewed the scope of Section 482 and binding precedents including Bhajan Lal and later authorities, as well as the Supreme Court direction in Muskan v. Ishaan Khan that inherent powers must be exercised sparingly and that criminalisation of disputes of civil nature should be prevented. The Court held that factual disputes as to possession, management and trespass could not be decided on a quash petition and that the matter ought to proceed to trial. The petition was dismissed; however the Court granted the petitioners liberty to raise all contentions before the Trial Court, including filing an application for discharge if charges had not been framed, and directed that any such application be considered and disposed of in accordance with law "untramelled by any observation made in this order."

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.MC NO. 3726 OF 2023
Case Title: Sajith N.K. & Ors. v. Raveendran & State of Kerala
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Smt. Thushara V; Sri C. Vathsalán; Sri K. Rakesh Roshan
For the Respondent(s): Sri M. P. Prasanath, Public Prosecutor; Shri P. P. Thajudeen, Standing Counsel, Adat Grama Panchayat; Sri Santharam P.; Smt. Rekha Aravind; Sri P. G. Gokulnath