Writ Petition No. 6223 of 2020 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10134 WP No. 6223 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO. 6223 OF 2020 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. P. N. NARASINGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE P.N. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, "SRI GAYATHRI NILAYA", # 1/367, 75, KORANGRAPADI POST, UDUPI - 574 118.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. P. N. PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O P. N. GOPALAKRISHNA RAO, "SRI KRISHNA", BHARATH SINGH MARG, AJJARAKADU, UDUPI - 576 101. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS OF UDUPI DISTRICT, RAJATHA BHAWAN, MANIPAL, UDUPI - 576 101. (BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R2) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10134 WP No. 6223 of 2020 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS IN CRL. JUDGE, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI REV.PET.NO.82/2016 (ANNXURE-E) ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi District, Udupi in criminal revision petition No.82/2016. 2. This petition is preferred to quash the impugned order and to direct respondent No.2 herein to handover the custody of the articles to him as per order dated 07.10.2016 passed by the learned Magistrate (vide Annexure-A). 3. On a complaint filed by respondent No.1, which was referred for investigation, a case in crime No.174/2013 was registered at Manipal Police Station, against the petitioner for offences punishable under - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10134 WP No. 6223 of 2020 Section 415, 416, 420, 403, 405, 504 and 506 of IPC. During investigation, certain articles were seized. Initially, the said articles were released infavour of the complainant on certain conditions. 4. Subsequently, on an application filed by the petitioner herein, on the ground that the term of office of the respondent was completed as President of Managing Committee of the Temple, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 07.10.2016 allowed the said application and directed the respondent herein to handover the property mentioned in the application to the interim custody of the petitioner. 5. The above order dated 07.10.2016 passed by the learned Magistrate was challenged by respondent No.1 herein before the learned Sessions Judge by way of criminal revision petition No.82/2016. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 09.11.2017 dismissed the said petition, thereby rejecting the claim of respondent No.1, however, the order - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10134 WP No. 6223 of 2020 dated 07.10.2016 passed by the learned Magistrate was set aside and a direction was issued to the petitioner herein to hand over the articles to the custody of Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowment and Charitable Institution of Upudi District within one month from the date of the order. 6. A criminal appeal No.60/2018 was filed by the petitioner herein against the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The said appeal was disposed of, permitting to convert the same as criminal petition. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in criminal revision petition No.82/2016 dated 09.11.2017. 7. It is pertinent to mention that against the very same impugned order, even respondent No.1 herein filed a criminal petition No.67/2018 before this Court, wherein the petitioner was arraigned as respondent. This Court has rejected the said petition by an order dated - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10134 WP No. 6223 of 2020 27.04.2018. Para 5 to 8 are relevant, which are extracted hereunder: “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 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 smooth Institutions of Udupi District functioning of day-to-day affairs of said temple. for 7. As rightly pointed out by learned sessions judge, neither petitioner nor accused is entitled or 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. In that view of the matter, I find no error committed by the Revisional Court calling for - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10134 WP No. 6223 of 2020 interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, petition stands rejected.” 8. This Court has upheld the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge holding that, neither the petitioner nor accused is entitled for the interim custody of the aforesaid articles. 9. In view of the undisputed fact that, the impugned order was challenged before this Court in criminal petition No.67/2018 wherein this Court has observed that, the learned Sessions Judge was right in pointing out that neither the petitioner nor accused is entitled for the interim custody of the articles, no further orders can be passed or a different view can be taken in the present writ petition. 10. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE AMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45