KRISHNA BAI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganga-pur, in case under sec. 147, Criminal Procedure, Code.

(2.) SMT. Krishna Bai (hereinafter to be referred to as the applicant) found an Ashram known as Shri Mumukshu Mahila Ashram (hereinafter to be referred to as the Ashram) in the neighbourhood of the temple of Shri Mahavirji, which is a very old and famous Jain temple in the village Naurangabad in the district of Sawai Madhopur. This was found some time before April, 1955. It is a common ground that this temple of Mahavirji attracts quite a large number of devotees, both Jains and non-Jains during the Mahavir Jayanti, which is celebrated between Chaite Sudi 11 and Baisakh Badi 1 every year. Different religious ceremonies are performed during this period culminating in a Rath (chariot) procession of Mahavirji on Baisakh Badi 1, the last day of the Jayanti. In the year 1955 the applicant installed an idol in the Ashram precincts and gave the temple the name of Mahavirji temple. It appears that certain person were appointed trustees of the institution founded by the applicant and one of them is Shri Sunderlal Raniwala describing himself as the Secretary of Shri Digamber Jain Bim Prathistha Mahotsava Shri Mahavirji addressed a letter dated 7th of April, 1955 to the Secretary of the old Mahavirji's temple and requested for certain articles belonging to the old temple on the occasion of the installation of the idol in the new temple constructed by the applicant. Then followed another letter dated 9th of April, 1955 from the same Shri Sunderlal Raniwala, describing himself as the Secretary of the Digamber Jain Prathistha Mahotsawa of Mumukshu Mahila Ashram, and by this letter the Secretary of the old Mahavirji's temple was requested to give permission for the taking out a chariot procession of the new idol on the occasion of installation between the 22nd April to 29th April, 1955. According to the affidavit of Shri Sohanlal, one of the members of the executive committee of the old temple, this permission was given and the chariot procession was taken out. In the year 1956 the applicant wanted to take out the Rath procession of the new idol during the Mahavir jayanti. A dispute arose between the party of the applicant and the authorities of the old temple and by a prohibitory order, the District Magistrate of Sawai Madhopur restrained the applicant from taking out Rath procession from the new temple during the Jayanti period. The procession, was therefore, not taken out that year. Again in the year 1957, the applicant wanted to take out Rath procession from her temple and she requested the District authorities to accord her permission for the same. The authorities of the old Mahavirji's temple objected to any Rath procession being taken out from the applicant's temple during the Jayanti days and the District Magistrate of Sawai Madhopur initiated proceedings under sec. 147 Criminal Procedure Code. A preliminary order dated 7th of March, 1957 was issued and both the parties were ordered to file their written statements and produce evidence in support of their respective claims. The applicant as well as the authorities of the old Mahavirji's temple (hereinafter to be referred to as the opponents) filed their written statements and affidavits. They also filed certain documentary evidence. In her written statement the applicant said that the road on which she wanted to take out the procession was a public road, that she had a perfect right to take out the procession peacefully and that there was no danger of any breach of peace from her side. In their written statements the opponents said that the land over which the applicant wanted to take out procession from her new temple was in the Thikana of old Mahavirji's temple and was the property of the thikana and that the road had been constructed by the thikana of Mahavirji for the facility of the pilgrims visting the temple and for the facility of the temple itself. It was stated that the applicant had no right to take out a procession over the said land without the consent of the thikana. They said that if procession were taken out by the applicant, there was danger of breach of peace.

(3.) THE reference is rejected and the order of the learned District Magistrate dated 9th April, 1957, is maintained subject to the result of any suit which might be brought by any of the parties concerned. .