P&H High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In Dera Samadh Trust Misappropriation Case, Orders Expeditious Probe

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash an FIR alleging embezzlement, forgery and misappropriation of funds belonging to Dera Samadh charitable trust, holding that the allegations required a thorough investigation and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Justice H.S. Grewal noted, "the complaint in question contains specific allegations against petitioner No.1, who was allegedly associated with the affairs of the Dera and was handling its financial matters. He is alleged to have taken advantage of the advanced age of late Swami Ganeshanand, manipulated trust documents, got execution of questionable sale deeds in favour of his wife, and misappropriated funds from various bank accounts connected with the institution, which cannot be said to be vague or bald allegations."

The Court was dealing with two connected petitions, arising out of FIRs under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

The first plea was filed by the accused persons seeking quashing of the order dated July 14, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, and the consequent FIR. The second petition, sought directions to the authorities to take action against the accused persons and complete the investigation.

The case originated from a complaint filed by Ramdiya (since deceased) against functionaries of Dera Samadh (Acharya Mahamandleshwar Swami Ganeshanand Maharaj Dharmarth Trust, Uchana). The Dera was alleged to own substantial land and run charitable institutions.

It was alleged that after the death of the head of the Dera, Swami Ganeshanand, who was entrusted with financial affairs—misused his position by forging signatures, fraudulently preparing trust documents, executing sale deeds in favour of his wife, and siphoning off funds from the Dera's accounts.

Initially, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate declined the complainant's plea under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, in revision, directed the matter to be investigated, leading to registration of the FIR.

The High Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the revisional court lacked jurisdiction on the ground that the Magistrate's order was interlocutory. It held that an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has substantive legal consequences and cannot be treated as a purely interlocutory order barred from revision under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.

The Court observed that the complaint contained specific and serious allegations against petitioner No.1 regarding the manipulation of trust property and finances. It further held that the defence raised by the petitioners—that the disputed property was personal property of the deceased and not of the trust—raises disputed questions of fact that can only be examined during investigation.

Relying on settled law, including the principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that the case does not fall within the limited categories warranting quashing of criminal proceedings.

Finding no illegality in the order of the Additional Sessions Judge or the registration of the FIR, the Court dismissed the plea.

However, allowing the second plea, the Court directed the investigating agency to complete the investigation expeditiously and proceed in accordance with law.

Mr. P.S. Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate and

Mr. G.S. Hundal, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M-1429-2014 and for respondents No. 4 to 9 in CRM-M-2905-2014.

Mr. Anirudh Kaushal, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for the petitioner in CRM-M-2905-2014 and for the complainant in CRM-M-1429-2014.

Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

Title: Ravi Shankar and others v. State of Haryana and another

Click here to read order