"Caste-Based Discrimination": Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Against Woman For Entering Temple, Says It Isn't Trustees' Personal Property

Rajasthan High Court quashed the FIR filed against a woman from a marginalized community for the alleged offence of creating chaos at the Mahakaleshwar Mahadev Ji Siddh Dham temple by trying to forcibly cut open the lock of the temple and enter forcefully.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that in the background of no evidence showing criminal intent on the part of the petitioner for the alleged offence, the FIR was an abuse of law initiated with ulterior motives, especially in light of the SC/ST background of the petitioner that might have caused some discomfort among the trustees of the temple.

“The petitioner's Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe background cannot be overlooked, especially in light of the fact that access to religious institutions has historically been restricted for marginalized communities. The denial of access to the petitioner, and the subsequent criminal complaint, could very well be an instance of caste-based discrimination.”

Background

The facts of the case were that the trustees of the temple had erected barricades to prevent worshippers from going beyond a certain point in the temple. However, the accused allegedly tried to cross the barricades forcibly, leading to registration of the FIR for offences of house-trespass and mischief causing damage.

The Court highlighted the fact that even though the complainant seemed to be the trustee of the temple, the FIR was actually lodged by the sub-inspector claiming to be a witness of the incident. This fact was seen as raising questions on the credibility and genuineness of the complaint.

The Court perused the respective Sections under IPC for the alleged offences and opined that the offences of house trespass and mischief causing damage required an element of criminal intent or willful disobedience. However, in the present case, the primary objective of the petitioner was to access a public place of worship, which was a lawful act in itself, without there being any evidence of causing harm or damage to property. Hence, no prima facie case was made out.

“Moreover, the video evidence and photographs, which form the basis of the FIR, do not support the allegations of forceful entry or damage to property. At most, it appears that the petitioner attempted to cross a barricade to enter a public temple. This act, without any accompanying evidence of violence, force, or mischief, cannot be categorized as criminal trespass or mischief under Sections 448 and 427. The absence of physical damage to the property or evidence of harm further weakens the case against the petitioner.”

Furthermore, the Court observed that restricting access to a public place by erecting barricades by private trustees was a violation of the fundamental right to worship guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution, and such discriminatory conduct that deprived any section of society of their fundamental right could not be allowed on the part of the trustees.

The Court also ruled that the temple was a public place and merely managing it does not make it a personal property of certain Trustees.

“The Trust/trustees must realize that the temple is a public place. Merely because it is managed by certain Trustees does not make it their personal property. Every citizen has the right to access the temple and offer prayers. In this case, it seems the Trustees are creating an unnecessary barrier to the public's right of access.”

Accordingly, the quashing petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and the charges against her were set aside.

Title: Sapna Nimawat v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 304

Click Here To Read/Download Order