Karnataka High Court Declines To Quash Rape, POCSO Charges Against Chitradurga Mutt Pontiff; Orders Trial Court To Redraw Other Charges

The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to quash rape charges against the pontiff of Murugha Mutt of Chitradurga, Dr Shivamurthy Muruga Sharanaru, who is accused of sexually abusing two minor girls staying in the hostels run by the Mutt.

However, the court quashed the order of the trial court framing charges against the accused and directed it to redraw the charges after quashing certain offences levelled against the accused.

A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna partly allowed the petition. The seer was arrested under the POCSO Act after the girls approached a Mysuru-based NGO Odanadi Seva Samsthe seeking help.

The court said, “Trial court could not have acted as a mere post office to what the prosecution had presented before it while framing charges. The following offences in the order framing the charge are held to be loosely laid against the petitioner."

It said that Section 3(f) and Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, were loosely laid as it is held that it is not applicable to the very institution by a coordinate bench.

Court further said that the offences under the Atrocities Act, and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, are held to be loosely laid in the light of the fact that the offences are against accused no 2. It also did not find substance in the offence of gang rape against the pontiff as it was the rape that was alleged.

All other offences concerning rape as obtaining under section 376 (2)(n), and under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO act were sustained. It said “Since the order framing charge is a composite document the concerned court shall redraw the charges against the petitioner bearing in mind the observations made in the course of order.”

For the aforesaid reasons, the Court allowed the writ petitions in part and quashed the orders framing the charges. The matter was remitted back to the trial court to redraw the charges bearing in mind the observation made in the present order.

It clarified that “Concerned court shall not be bound by the findings rendered in the course of the order except the ones which are found faulted. The concerned court shall not be influenced while drawing a fresh document of charge to any of the observations made during the course of the order. All contention except the ones that are analysed shall remain open to be urged before the appropriate fora at the appropriate time. The concerned court after re-drawing the charges shall regulate its proceedings.”

The court also quashed the order of the trial court rejecting the application filed under section 207 of CrPC seeking documents by the petitioner. It said that the petitioner was entitled to documents sought for in the application if not already a part of the charge sheet material.

Earlier, the High Court had granted bail to the petitioner, subject to him executing two bonds each for Rs.2,00,000. 

Further, it had said “Bail is not an absolute liberty, conditions are always imposed while granting bail. If he misuses the liberty and violates the conditions of bail the same may be considered for cancellation of bail.”

Case Title: DR SHIVAMURTHY MURUGHA SHARANARU AND STATE BY KARNATAKA & ANR

Case NO: CRL.P 4391/2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 122