Kailashpuri Temple Case: Rajasthan High Court Removes ‘Grievous Injury’ Charge from FIR Against Security Guards.

The Rajasthan High Court has removed the serious injury charge from the FIR against Security Guards related to an incident at Kailashpuri Temple involving a Judicial Officer. The Court was reviewing a petition to dismiss the FIR. Justice Arun Monga noted that the FIR lacks any claims of serious injury. The Public Prosecutor’s earlier statements indicate that the investigation is complete, and a charge sheet against five individuals is planned. The Court decided it was not the right time to examine other claims. Given the overall facts and circumstances, the Court ordered the removal of Section 117(2) of BNS (similar to Section 325 of IPC) from FIR No.0452/2024 dated August 13, 2024, filed at Police Station Sukher, Udaipur.

The complainant, who is the wife of a Judicial Officer in Rajasthan, was at the Eklingji Temple in Kailashpuri (Udaipur) with her husband on August 13, 2024, when the incident took place. Her husband, a Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, allegedly pretended to be a High Court judge and cut in line with other devotees. When asked to follow the rules, he became aggressive and argued with the temple security. He even tried to attack the security staff, resulting in a scuffle that was recorded on the temple’s CCTV.

It was further argued that reviewing the CCTV footage reveals that Shri Sharma provoked the incident while at the temple with his family and friends. It was mentioned that the temple administration was not informed of his visit beforehand; had they been notified, they could have made special arrangements. Despite the large crowd of devotees during the Savan month, he decided to skip the line, leading to the unpleasant incident. It was claimed that later, to undermine the temple administration, Shri Sharma, through his wife, filed a false FIR, which is being challenged here. The petitioners’ Senior Counsel argued that they have been wrongly accused based on unfounded claims, as no crime, as alleged, has been committed by them. He pointed out that while the FIR mentions offenses under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including rioting and assault, the evidence indicates that the events did not happen as described. He referenced a pen drive containing CCTV footage and video recordings to support his argument that the FIR is baseless and driven by ulterior motives.

He also claimed that the complainant’s husband, abusing his role as a Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, had a false FIR filed. He argued that the FIR is based on false and fabricated information, stemming from a personal grudge after being asked to wait in line. He accused the Judicial Officer of using his wife to act on his behalf to initiate criminal proceedings. The Court noted that whether the allegations made by the complainant are false is a matter for trial and will be determined by the appropriate trial Court upon the filing of the charge sheet, as indicated in the factual report. However, the Court firmly believed that the elements of Section 117(2) of BNS (which corresponds to Section 325 of IPC) are not present.

Cause Title: Chatar Singh Chouhan vs. State Of Rajasthan (2024:RJ-JD:41509 IR)
Appearances:
Petitioners- Senior Advocate Puneet Jain assisted by Advocate Mohd. Aslam Naushad, Advocate Sheetal Kumbhat
Respondents- Senior Advocate Anand Purohit assisted by Advocate Ranjeet Joshi, Public Prosecutor Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, AGA R.S. Bhati