'Samadh' Of A Family Member Not A 'Place Of Worship', Its Defilement/Damage No Offence U/S 295 IPC: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the desecration of the Samadh of a family member would not amount to the offence of defiling of a place of worship or sacred object under Section 295, IPC.Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed, “A Samadh of a family member cannot constitute a place of worship held sacred by a class of persons. In the case of such a Samadh, a desecration...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the desecration of the Samadh of a family member would not amount to the offence of defiling of a place of worship or sacred object under Section 295, IPC.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed, “A Samadh of a family member cannot constitute a place of worship held sacred by a class of persons. In the case of such a Samadh, a desecration thereof would entail an insult to a family member at best. By no stretch of imagination can it be held that a destruction damage or defilement would amount to insult to the religion of an aggrieved person.“
These observations came in response to the plea filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the criminal complaint filed by a brother against his sister under Sections 452, 379, 295, 435, 506, 148, 149,120-B IPC and the Summoning order under Sections 148, 295 read with Section 149 IPC passed by the JMIC, Moga, Punjab.
The dispute pertains to ancestral property between a brother and sister. The land was transferred to the sister by her father. The brother filed a criminal complaint with multiple allegations including accusations for desecration to the Samadhs of a common ancestor.
Considering the submissions, the Court referred to Saraswathi Ammal & another v. Rajagopal Ammal, [(1953) 2 SCC 390] wherein the Apex Court said, “…the building of a samadhi or a tomb over the remains of a person and the making of provision for the purpose of Gurupooja and other ceremonies in connection with the same cannot be recognised as charitable or religious purpose according to Hindu law. This is not on the ground that such a dedication is for a superstitious use and hence invalid.“
While noting that it is established in the civil proceedings that the land was in the possession of the petitioner where the alleged incidents took place, the Court said, “This fact has deliberately not been disclosed in the complaint for obvious reasons. Had it been brought to the notice of the Summoning Court, the possibility of the impugned order being passed under Sections 148/149/120-B IPC would have been unlikely. Therefore, no offence under Sections 148 & 149 IPC is made out.”
The Court further held that the desecration of Samadh of a family member would not amount to an offence of desecration under Section 295, IPC.
“Even otherwise, there are no allegations against the petitioners regarding destruction, defilement or damage to the Samadh. Therefore, no offence under Section 295 IPC is made out on the admitted facts on the record,” it added.
In the light of the above, the Court set aside a summoning order under Sections 148, 295 read with Section 149 IPC and all subsequent proceedings.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 269
Case Title: KRISHNA DEVI & OTHERS v. LAL CHAND AND ANOTHER