Point of law: Quash of Criminal proceedings - There cannot be a criminal prosecution against the petitioners herein, which leads to an abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. If the Court fails to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in a case, where the complaint is lodged with a mala fide intention and to wreck vengeance against the petitioners, it defeats the very purpose of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

These petitions are filed by accused Nos.2 to 4 in PCR No.30/2012 praying this Court to quash the complaint and the proceedings in PCR No.30/2012 and consequently quash the FIR in Crime No.57/2012 filed by the second respondent/complainant on the file of XXIII Additional City Civil @ Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4133/2012 took Sanyasa Deeksha during the year 1971 and has been managing branch mutt of Shree. Adhichunchanagiri Mahasamsthana Mutt at Mandya. He has been assisting the Peetadhipathi in the matters relating to religious activities. The Swamiji residing at Adhichunchanagiri Mutt taking care of the mutt affairs. The other petitioner in Crl.P.No.4134/2012 is residing at Mutt and helping Peetadhipathi and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4135/2012 is a resident of Vijayanagar, Bengaluru and the devotee of the Mutt. These petitioners have nothing to do with the management or administration of the trust properties and no specific allegations have been made against them in the complaint and only general and casual remarks have been made against them in the complaint tagging their names in the complaint along with accused No.1.

3. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.4134/2012 is the Managing Trustee of Shri. BGS Education Trust, Bengaluru. He being the disciple of Sri. Sri. Sri. Balagangadhranatha Swamji, is assisting the Peethadhipathi in the matters relating to establishing, maintenance and administration of educational institutions and other religious activities.

4. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.4135/2012 is a Doctor, who has been appointed as a trustee of BGS Health & Education Trust on 18.01.2011 in view of his vast knowledge and experience in the field of health and medicine. He was also not involved in any of the transaction alleged by the complainant except health and medicine field.

5. The first respondent/complainant is an Ex-Councilor of Hulimavu Village, Bannerghatta road for Bommanahalli City Municipal Council. He has filed a complaint before the XXIII Additional City Civil @ Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru, against the Peethadhipathi and also against the petitioners including other 23 public servants found in different posts. The specific allegation made against them in the complaint that the complainant being Ex-Councilor, a social worker and a responsible citizen and he is concerned with the rise of corruption in the State. It is alleged that the public servants in the State are least bothered about the law of the land. But he claims that he deeply interested to uphold the rule of law in society at large. It is also claimed that he is one of the trustees of Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple Jeernodhaara Trust. Shri. Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple is situated at Hulimavu village from an immemorial period having devotees throughout the State.

6. It is his case that the Government of Karnataka has granted 15 acres and 31 guntas of land in Sy.No.89 and renumbered as Sy.No.92 of Hulimavu Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk under two grant orders bearing No.LND-SR(S)13/86-87 dated 09.03.1981 and No.LND 3(S)CR246/84-85 dated 28.05.1985 in favour of Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple Trust on certain terms and conditions.

7. The Government of Karnataka has also granted an additional land of 10 guntas in Sy.No.63, the same is renumbered as Re-Sy.No.98 of Hulimavu village vide No.LND(S) CR-20/88-89 dated 07.09.1990. It is alleged in the complaint that without taking any confidence of the devotees and local residents in and around the temple, against the interest of the Temple with Adichunchanagiri Mahasamsthana headed by Sri Sri Bala Gangadharanatha Swamiji, accused No.1 had created a document alleged to be entrusted the trust property without there being any sanctity in the eye of law or proceedings of the general body to accept such resolution. The allegation against other accused, particularly, accused No.5