AFTAB ALAM, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
SUDARSHANACHARAYA – Appellant
Versus
SHRI PURUSHOTTAMACHARYA – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Smt.) Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.-Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 10/12/2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench at Lucknow. The High Court dismissed Criminal Misc. Case No.4227 of 2010 filed by the appellant praying that Criminal Complaint Case No.13 of 2008 be quashed.
3. Respondent 1 is the complainant (‘complainant’, for clarity). He filed a complaint in the court of ACJM, Faizabad against the appellant. According to the complainant, the temple of Lord Venkatesh situated in Ayodhya town is managed by a Trust. The appellant is the adopted son of Smt. Hulasmani Devi, the Sarwarkar and President of Vaikunth Mandap Sri Venkatesh Mandir Trust Committee. In short, the case of the complainant, as disclosed in Complaint dated 09/09/1985, is that on 31/08/1973 considering religious nature of the appellant, the appellant was entrusted with several silver and gold articles, jewellery and other articles belonging to the temple so that he may propagate the sect. In December, 1973, the appellant requested that he may be given certain more articles. Accordingly, more articles were
State of Haryana & Ors. V. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [(1992) Supp 1 SCC 335]
Punjab National Bank & Ors. V. Surendra Prasad Sinha [(1993) Supp 1 SCC 499]
Rajiv Gupta & Ors. V. State of H.P. [(2000) 10 SCC 68]. Referred. (Para 9)
Common Cause A Regd. Society v. Union of India [(1996) 6 SCC 775]
Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar [(1998) 7 SCC 507] (Raj Deo Sharma- I)
P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka [(2002) 4 SCC 578 Referred. (Para 12)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.