SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed a criminal case registered against the manager-cum-pujari of Thakurdwara Narsingh Ji Maharaj Temple in Bani, Kathua, holding that allegations of misappropriation of temple property and income raised against him essentially involved a civil dispute and should have been taken before a civil court rather than pursued through criminal proceedings.
Justice M A Chowdhary passed the judgment on July 16, 2026, in a petition filed by 65-year-old Lek Raj Padha, manager (Mohtimam) and pujari of the temple. The judgment was reserved on July 8 and uploaded on July 16.
Padha had approached the High Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 69/2020, registered on November 19, 2020, at Police Station Bani under Section 406 of the Ranbir Penal Code/IPC relating to criminal breach of trust.
Padha was represented by Senior Advocate L K Sharma, assisted by Advocate Mohit Kumar. Government Advocate Suneel Malhotra represented the Union Territory of Jammu Kashmir. At the same time, Advocate Harsh Dubey appeared for Pranav Sharma, secretary of the ECS Anti-Corruption Society for the UT of JK, who was the complainant in the case.
The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which the judgment notes is akin to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
According to Padha’s petition, his great-grandfather, a disciple, had established the Shri Narsingh Ji Maharaj temple at Bani. The petitioner claimed that Maharaja Pratap Singh, then ruler of the princely State of Jammu and Kashmir, subsequently granted 24 kanals and 13 marlas of land comprising Khasra Nos. 177, 188, 172 and 158 as a Sankalp, or free grant, to his great-grandfathers for the maintenance of the temple and their family.
The petitioner claimed that the management of the temple was hereditary. After his great-grandfather Mani died, the management passed to his son Nandu and subsequently to Padha’s father, Dewan Chand. Following his father’s death, Padha inherited the position of Mohtimam (manager) and pujari.
The judgment records that his position was also recognised by the Deputy Commissioner through an order dated June 18, 1991.
Padha maintained that his family had traditionally cultivated the land and used the agricultural produce to maintain the temple, while also using the surplus for family maintenance.
With the passage of time, however, the expenses of maintaining the temple increased and the agricultural income became insufficient to meet its day-to-day requirements. Padha said he therefore leased out portions of the land to different persons to augment the temple’s income, while retaining the remaining land under his personal cultivation.
He further stated that in 2004 he constituted a six-member committee to assist him in managing the affairs of the temple and was elected its chairman. The committee, according to the petition, maintained accounts of income and profits generated from the temple land.
A bank account was also opened in the name of the temple at JK Bank, Bani. It was operated by three committee members, including Padha, and income from cultivation and rent was deposited into it after meeting expenditure connected with the land and temple maintenance.
The case arose after Pranav Sharma allegedly began pressuring Padha to give him a piece of land free of cost. Padha alleged that after he refused, Sharma lodged the FIR accusing him of misappropriating temple income with criminal intent.
Padha argued before the High Court that the dispute, if any, was purely civil in nature and that Sharma should have approached a civil court rather than invoking criminal law.
He also argued that the FIR did not disclose a cognizable offence and that Sharma had no locus standi to lodge the complaint because he had no interest in the management or maintenance of the temple.
The petitioner further claimed that the complainant had concealed the fact that his management rights were hereditary and that the land had been granted by Maharaja Pratap Singh for the maintenance and welfare of the temple.
Senior Advocate L K Sharma reiterated these arguments before the High Court, submitting that some temple land had been acquired by the government for road construction while other portions had been leased to generate income to meet temple expenses.
He argued that the FIR was an abuse of the process of law and sought its quashing.
Government Advocate Suneel Malhotra told the court that a written complaint had been received at Police Station Bani through dak, duly endorsed by the SDPO Basohli on October 7, 2020. The complaint alleged that Padha, being in charge of the temple, had committed illegalities and misappropriated temple assets in connivance with certain revenue officials.
Following an inquiry, the police concluded that an offence under Section 406 IPC was made out and registered FIR No. 69/2020 on November 19, 2020.
The investigation was entrusted to Sub-Inspector Rahul Mahajan. The investigating officer recorded the complainant’s statement, obtained demarcation of the land and sought a report from the SDM Bani to the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua.
According to the government’s submissions, the report showed that 25 kanals and 12 marlas of land falling under survey Nos. 1521/158, 172, 1519/177, 188 and 1523/297 in village Bani stood recorded in the ownership of Thakurdwara Narsingh Ji Maharaj Mandir, Bani.
A large portion of the land, the government said, had allegedly been encroached upon, with residential houses, shops and bounded plots constructed on it.
The government informed the court that 54 persons had been identified as encroachers in one account of the investigation.
It also submitted that the High Court had initially stayed the investigation on May 1, 2022. The stay was subsequently vacated on March 17, 2023, with a direction to proceed with the investigation but not to present the chargesheet before the competent court without leave of the High Court.
The government maintained that the offences alleged in the FIR had been established during the investigation.
Advocate Harsh Dubey, appearing for respondent No. 2, opposed the petition and argued that it was not maintainable because it involved disputed questions of fact.
He submitted that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the petitioner had approached the court without clean hands by suppressing material facts.
A central contention was that the temple property belonged to the deity and not to Padha personally.
The complainant argued that the SDM Bani inquiry had found irregularities and alleged misappropriation of temple land and income. According to him, Padha was merely the manager of the temple and not its hereditary owner, and therefore could not claim ownership over the property.
The complainant also alleged that Padha had allowed encroachments on temple land in connivance with others.
The court was told that the petitioner had not disclosed the SDM’s inquiry report, which, according to the complainant, pointed towards irregularities in the management of temple property.
The High Court examined the material placed before it, including a report submitted by the Tehsildar Bani on September 5, 2019.
The report referred to allegations that Jai Singh, son of Goru Ram, and Daya Ram, son of Thola, were constructing buildings on the land after reportedly taking it on rent from the temple management committee.
The report also referred to complaints regarding the functioning of the temple management committee, particularly the Mohtimam.
According to the report discussed in the judgment, the Mohtam was the caretaker and trustee of the temple property and was himself alleged to have been involved in causing loss to the property under his custody.
The report stated that 25 kanals and 12 marlas of land under the specified survey numbers were recorded in the ownership of Thakurdwara Narsingh Ji Maharaj, Bani.
It further recorded allegations that a large portion of the land had been encroached upon and that residential structures, shops and bounded plots had been raised there.
The judgment says that 59 such properties were identified by the commission in the presence of the petitioner, while the government’s earlier submission referred to 54 persons as encroachers.
The revenue material also contained allegations concerning misuse of temple offerings and accused the petitioner of failing to safeguard temple property.
After hearing the parties and examining the record, Justice Chowdhary concluded that the allegations concerning the temple land and its management did not warrant criminal proceedings in the circumstances of the case.
The court noted that the petitioner was admittedly the manager of the Thakurdwara and that the land was recorded in the name of the temple. At the same time, Padha claimed hereditary rights not only over the management of the temple but also over the property attached to it, based on the grant allegedly made by Maharaja Pratap Singh.
The court observed that the allegations concerned the alleged misappropriation of temple property in the form of land that had either been leased, sold or allegedly allowed to be encroached upon.
But the crucial issue, according to the High Court, was the nature of the dispute.
“If the complainant or any other person have interest in the preservation of the property of Temple,” the court said, they could invoke civil jurisdiction by filing a civil suit or a writ petition before the competent court rather than pursuing criminal action.
The court held that the complainant had chosen criminal proceedings on allegations that Padha had misappropriated temple property and land for his vested interests, while Padha claimed hereditary rights over the management of the temple and the property attached to it.
In those circumstances, the court held, the appropriate remedy lay before a competent civil forum.
The High Court ultimately concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings in the circumstances amounted to misuse of criminal law.
“Having regard to the aforestated discussion,” Justice Chowdhary observed, “this action on the part of the respondents is clearly an abuse of the process of law when the matter is essentially of a civil nature.”
The court acknowledged that its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC had to be exercised “very sparingly and cautiously”.
However, it held that the present case fell within circumstances where judicial intervention was necessary.
“Under the given circumstances of the case where there is a clear misuse of the process of law, this court has to step in, to secure the ends of justice,” the judgment said.
Allowing Padha’s petition, the High Court ordered that FIR No. 69/2020 dated November 19, 2020, registered at Police Station Bani under Section 406 IPC, be quashed.
The judgment was pronounced at Jammu on July 16, 2026. It was marked as a speaking and reportable order.
The ruling does not determine the underlying ownership or management dispute over the temple property. Rather, the High Court held that allegations concerning the alleged misuse, leasing, encroachment or management of the temple’s property, in the circumstances placed before it, were essentially civil in character and should be pursued through the appropriate civil jurisdiction rather than criminal prosecution.
