Allegations OF Temple Land Misappropriation Require Civil Remedy, Not Criminal Prosecution: J&K&L High Court Quashes FIR Against Pujari

In doing so the court held that allegations relating to the management, leasing, encroachment and alleged misappropriation of temple land donated by Maharaja Pratap Singh are essentially a civil dispute and cannot be converted into a criminal prosecution for criminal breach of trust.

The Court further held that where the controversy concerns administration and preservation of temple property, the aggrieved person must seek appropriate civil remedies rather than invoke criminal law.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Lek Raj Padha, the hereditary Mohtimam/Pujari of Thakur Dwara Narsingh Ji Maharaj Temple, seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Section 406 IPC.

A Bench of Justice M.A. Chowdhary held that the allegations levelled against the petitioner pertained to management and preservation of temple property and, therefore, disclosed a dispute of a predominantly civil character. The Court observed that "for preservation of the Temple property, the complainant should have approached the competent forum on civil side instead of seeking any criminal action against the petitioner." Holding that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, the Court quashed the FIR.

According to the petitioner, the office of Mohtimam/Pujari of the temple has remained hereditary for generations. He stated that after his great-grandfather established the temple, Maharaja Pratap Singh granted land for the upkeep of the shrine and the maintenance of the family entrusted with its management.

Following succession through his grandfather and father, the petitioner became the recognised hereditary Manager/Pujari, a position acknowledged by the Deputy Commissioner in 1991.

The petitioner submitted that increasing maintenance costs made agricultural income insufficient, prompting him to lease portions of the temple land while continuing cultivation of the remaining area. In 2004, a management committee was constituted to assist in administering the temple, and a bank account was opened in the name of the temple for depositing rental income and agricultural proceeds after meeting the expenses incurred for the temple's upkeep.

The dispute arose after a complaint alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated temple property, facilitated encroachments and misused income generated from temple land. Acting on the complaint, the police registered an FIR under Section 406 IPC.

During investigation, revenue authorities reported that a substantial portion of land recorded in the name of the temple had been encroached upon and that several residential houses, commercial establishments and other structures had come up on the property. The investigating agency thereafter concluded that an offence of criminal breach of trust was made out against the petitioner.

The Court observed that the controversy revolved around the petitioner's exercise of powers as the hereditary Manager/Pujari and the manner in which temple property had been managed. The allegations concerning leasing of land, alleged encroachments and utilisation of income were intrinsically connected with the administration of temple property rather than constituting a clear criminal offence, he said.

Justice Chowdhary remarked ,

“…..The complainant instead of invoking civil jurisdiction of the courts has filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner herein on the basis of the accusations that he had misappropriated the Temple property, particularly, land appurtenant thereto for his vested interest and that he has also allowed encroachment of the Temple land by some unscrupulous elements for preservation of the Temple property, the complainant should have approached the competent forum on civil side instead of seeking any criminal action against the petitioner”

The Court, in no uncertain terms, deprecated the complainant's recourse to the criminal forum for what was essentially a civil dispute concerning Temple property. The Bench emphasised that the petitioner's assertion of hereditary rights covering both the management and the corpus of the Temple estate cannot be adjudicated through the penal machinery, which is ill-suited to determine questions of title and succession.

The proper course, therefore, was an application before the competent civil court, which alone is vested with the jurisdiction to examine such proprietary claims and grant appropriate relief for the preservation of the property in question, the court maintained.

The Bench concluded that the criminal proceedings were essentially an attempt to give a criminal colour to a dispute concerning civil rights over temple administration and property. Such an exercise, the Court held, amounted to misuse of the criminal process, warranting intervention under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction.

Emphasising that powers under Section 482 CrPC (now akin to Section 528 BNSS) are to be exercised sparingly but can be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law, the Court found the present case to be a fit one for exercising such jurisdiction in order to secure the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.

Case Title: Lek Raj Padha v. Union Territory of J&K & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

Click here to read/download the Judgment.