ANIL PANJWANI Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner - Anil Panjwani for quashing and setting aside the FIR No. 64/2010 dated 29.1.2010 registered at police station Jhotwara, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 153(2), 295, 295 -A and 504 IPC and also to set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 13.7.2010 and that of the learned revisional court dated 4.9.2010 whereby the application moved by the petitioner to hand over the idol of the temple on furnishing supardginama to him has been rejected and the matter has been fixed for arguments on charge.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts for the disposal of this petition are that on 29.1.2010 Shanker Singh son of Ishwar Singh resident of plot No. 3, Shakti Nagar, Jhotwara submitted a written report in the police station Jhotwara along with a green and black flag on which the sign of moon and star was made with embroidary, with the averments that in the morning when he went for pooja in the temple situated in front of plot No. 2, Shakti Nagar, Jhotwara, at that time accused Anil Panjwani came from his house having sword in his hand and tried to kill him. It is also alleged that on an idol of Ganeshji, he wrote '786' and 'allah -o -akbar'. It was also alleged that the flag hosted on the temple was thrown out by him and in its place another flag showing sign of moon and star was hosted. It is also alleged that Anil Panjwani was in the habit of abusing the persons coming to the temple for darshan and pooja and was also trying to create communal disharmony amongst people. On the above report FIR No. 64/2010 for the offence under Sections 153(2), 295, 295A and 504 IPC was registered and after investigation charge -sheet was filed in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Jaipur city, Jaipur against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences on 9.7.2010. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused and fixed the matter on 3.9.2010 for arguments on charge. It appears that an application was moved by the petitioner before the trial court for supardgi of deity of the temple. It was also stated in the application that the temple was his personal property and he cannot be denied the right to worship and the deity of the temple should be handed over to him. The learned trial court after hearing both sides, finding that the offence against the accused was under Sections 153(2), 295, 295A and 504 IPC and the seizure of idol and other articles by the police was the relevant evidence in the case and the idol of the deity was not required to be given on supardginama to the accused at the stage of charge, therefore, the application moved by the petitioner was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 13.7.2010. The petitioner having felt aggrieved preferred a revision petition which came to be decided by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jaipur city Jaipur on 4.9.2010. The revisional court found that the order passed by the trial court was proper and the deity regarding which the petitioner moved an application for supardgi was seized by the police and the same was required to be tendered in evidence. It was also observed by the revisional court that the petitioner wanted to encroach upon the land and on the Hindu idols he wrote '786' and other things which has resulted in hurting the feelings of the followers of Hindu religion. The learned revisional court dismissed the revision petition. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) IT has been the contention of the petitioner who claims himself to be an advocate that it is a settled position of law that one cannot be denied the right to worship. It has also been submitted that it is the function of the State to look after the welfare of the deity which is a perpetual minor. It has also been submitted that what has been stated in the FIR has not been properly considered in the orders passed by the courts below. It has also been submitted that in fact on 29.1.2010 he was attacked at his house regarding which he filed a complaint. It has further been submitted that a false case has been registered against him. The entire proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate requires to be quashed and set aside.