Rajasthan High Court Drops Grievous Hurt Charge In FIR Against Temple Security Guards After Complaint By Judicial Officer's Wife

While hearing a plea for quashing an FIR against two security personnel manning the 1300-year-old Eklingji temple, booked for alleged assault in a complaint filed by the wife of a judicial officer, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court went on to drop the offence of grievous hurt alleged against the two men from the FIR. 

In doing so, the court observed that the FIR was bereft of any allegations regarding grievous injury (Section 117 BNS) and its ingredients were missing in the facts of the case. The court however said that whether or not allegations levelled by the complainant are false or true is a matter of trial. 

A single judge bench of Justice Arun Monga in its order said, "As far as Section 117(2) of BNS (corresponding Section 325 of IPC) is concerned, concededly, in the absence of any elementary allegation qua the same, the factual report to that extent does not stand judicial scrutiny. A perusal of the above reflects that in the present case there is complete absence of any allegations in the FIR with regard to any grievous injury and its ingredients are lacking". 

Taking note of the Public Prosecutor's contentions the court noted that the investigation had already concluded. It said that charge sheet against five persons is proposed.

"At this stage, it would therefore not be appropriate for this Court to go into merits of other allegations. In the premise, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and as an upshot of discussion recorded herein above, and in view of the factual report, supra, Section 117(2) of BNS (corresponding Section 325 of IPC) invoked in the FIR...is directed to be dropped," the court directed. 

The complaint was filed by the wife (complainant) of a senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Judge) in relation to an incident that took place while the complainant along with her husband and family visited the temple situated at Kailashpuri, Udaipur in August.

It was the case of the petitioners–which includes a 71-year-old senior citizen, that the judicial officer allegedly claimed himself to be a sitting High Court judge and intruded into the queue of the devotees. When he was asked to follow the discipline, he allegedly became aggressive and abusive and engaged in a heated exchange with the temple security. The petitioners claimed that the judicial officer allegedly attempted to assault the security personnel, leading to a scuffle, which was captured on the temple's CCTV.

Furthermore, it was submitted that to discredit the temple administration, the Judge lodged the "false FIR" through his wife, misusing his position. The petitioners also relied on the video recordings of CCTV camera from the temple, arguing that no offences of rioting or assault occurred as described in the FIR. The senior counsel appearing for the petitioners' argued that the "FIR is based on false and fabricated facts, due to a personal vendetta on being merely asked to wait in the queue".

Prosecution contended that investigation is completed and only BNS Sections 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), 126(2) (wrongful restraint), 351(2)/(3) (criminal intimidation), 324(6) (mischief), 117(2) (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt) of BNS, 2023 are attributed in the present case and rest of the penal Sections have been dropped.

After hearing the arguments, the high court said, "Having heard the rival contentions and after perusal of the case file as well as the contents of the FIR herein, I am of the opinion whether or not allegations levelled by the complainant are false or not is a matter of trial and shall be decided by the competent trial Court upon filing of the charge sheet which is proposed as per the factual report". 

Dropping Section 117(2) BNS, the high court disposed of the plea with the observation that in case the petitioners are arrested for the rest of the offences which are bailable, they shall be released upon furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 

Case Title: Chatar Singh Chouhan & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 320

Click Here To Read/Download Order