Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.S. MUDAGAL, J.
Vidya Manohara Teertha Swamigalu Peethadipathy – Appellant
Versus
State by Station House Officer (Incharge) Basavanagudi Police Station – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 5320 of 2015
Decided On : 03-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Jayakumar S. Patil, Namitha Mahesh, C.V. Sudhindra.
The judgment established that proprietary rights do not absolve individuals from accountability, and possession of entrusted property can lead to charges of misappropriation and breach of trust.
Headnote:
Quashing of Proceedings - Criminal Misappropriation - IPC 120B, 403, 420, 405 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings against them for offences under IPC Sections 406, 420, 120B, and 403. The charges stemmed from allegations of misappropriation and maladministration in a religious sect, involving missing valuable items and fake articles.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, finding that the allegations constituted offences of misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, cheating, and conspiracy. The court also rejected the argument that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process of the court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the proprietary rights of the petitioners, their accountability for missing articles, and the alleged offences under IPC Sections 406, 420, 403, and 120B.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' proprietary rights did not absolve them of accountability, and their possession of the missing articles amounted to entrustment. The court also found that the allegations constituted offences of cheating, misappropriation, breach of trust, and conspiracy.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court's observations were not treated as findings on the merits of the petitioners' defense.
K.S. MUDAGAL, J.
1. Petitioners in this case are seeking quashing of proceedings in CC No. 11651/2015 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of Crime No. 33/2013 of Basavanagudi police station.
2. The said case was registered against the petitioners and another on the basis of complaint dated 21.02.2013 as per Annexure-A filed by respondent No. 2.
3. Sri Sosale Vysaraya Mutt is denomination of Madva sect which owns movable and immovable properties. Prior to petitioner No. 1's anointing as Peetadhipathi, Shri Vidhya Manohara Theertha Swamiji was head of said peeta. Petitioner No. 1 was paternal grandson of said Sri Vidya Vachaspathi Theertharu. Said Shri Vidya Vachaspathi Theertha Swamiji anointed petitioner No. 1 on 04.09.2004 as his successor to the said mutt.
4. One Sri Vyasaraja Seva Samithi filed O.S. No. 16617/2006 against Sri Vyasaraj Mutt (Sosale) represented by Sri Vidya Vachaspathi Theertharu, present petitioner No. 1 and two others for permanent injunction. In that suit, Commissioner was appointed to take inventory of the movables of the mutt. On 07th and 08th of September, 2006, Commissioner conducted inventory in the presence of Shri Vidya Manohara Theertha Swamiji and petitioner No. 1 and that was submitted to the Court in O.S. No. 16617/2006.
5. On the demise of Shri Vidya Manohara Theertha Swamiji on 21.11.2007, petitioner No. 1 succeeded him as Peetadhipathi of the said mutt. In 2012, on the allegations of misappropriation and maladministration in the mutt, Government vide Govt. Order No. RD 67 MuDaPra 2002, Bangalore, dated 26.05.2012 appointed administrator for administration of the corporeal affairs of Sosale Vysaraya Mutt and its other branches.
6. In terms of the said Government Order, Sri K. Jairaj, Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka was appointed as administrator. On 17.06.2012, a team of officers working under the said administrator visited Sosale Vysaraya Mutt, Mysore and took inventory of the valuables, jewellary and pooja articles of the mutt in the Sosale Vysaraya Mutt, Mysore.
7. On 21.02.2013, respondent No. 2 filed complaint before Basavanagudi police against petitioners and another alleging that 17 valuable items submitted during inventory/report of 2006 in OS No. 16617/2006 were missing, while taking subsequent inventory on 17.06.2012. He further alleged that while conducting inventory in 2006, those articles were entrusted to petitioner No. 1 for safe custody and that was recorded in the inventory. He further alleged that in reply to the letter dated 02.07.2012 regarding missing articles petitioner No. 1 contended that they are in his safe custody at the Benne Govindappa Road Premises of Mutt at Bangalore but failed to produce those articles. He further alleged that petitioners in collusion with others have misappropriated those 17 articles in violation of injunction order granted against them. He alleged that out of other valuables produced in the second inventory, some were replaced by duplicate articles defrauding the mutt for personal gain of the petitioners.
8. On the basis of such complaint, Basavanagudi police registered FIR in Crime No. 33/2013 on 21.02.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 403, 420 and 405 of IPC. After conducting investigation, Basavanagudi police filed charge sheet on 15.04.2015 against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 120B and 403 of IPC.
9. It is alleged in the charge sheet that out of 17 missing articles, accused No. 1 has handed over two gold plates to his mother and she pledged them with a pawn broker in Mysore. In that regard, Laxmipuram Police, Mysore registered Crime No. 170/2011 against petitioner No. 1, his mother and brother for the offences punishable under Section 406, 408 and 420 of IPC. The charge sheet further alleges that out of remaining 15 articles, some valuable articles shown at page Nos.44 and 45 of the inventory proved to be
