SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 1295

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
J.M. KHAZI, J.
Chandramouleshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu - Appellant
Versus
Ramachandra Swamy S/o Natarajan - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 4326 of 2023
Decided On : 08-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Nataraju J.
For the Respondents: B.S. Nataraja, N. Anitha Girish

Impersonation in claims involving religious institutions warrants stringent legal scrutiny; sufficient evidence supports continuity of criminal proceedings against accused.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Petitioners sought to quash proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 416, 417, 418, 449, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120-B r/w Section 34 IPC due to allegations of impersonation regarding property claims. Petitioners alleged the defacto complainant had ulterior motives to dispossess them of properties belonging to the Math. The petition was rejected, confirming the sufficiency of evidence for the charges. (Paras 1, 10, 18)

(B) Impersonation - The court underscored the importance of verifying claims of identity in property disputes, particularly when accusations of impersonation are made regarding an established religious office. Evidence gathered indicated the accused had assumed the identity of the deceased original pontiff unlawfully. (Paras 3.1, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 and 2, were charged with impersonating the original pontiff of Ramalingeshwar Math to claim the Math's properties. The defacto complainant alleged fraud and presented evidence supporting his claims against the petitioners. (Paras 1, 8)

Findings of Court:
The court found substantive evidence implicating the petitioners in actions constituting impersonation, justifying the trial's continuation. An amendment was directed regarding the naming of the accused No.1. (Paras 18)

Issues: The primary issues revolve around the alleged impersonation of the original pontiff and the legitimacy of actions taken to claim Math properties. (Paras 10, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the complaint presented sufficient grounds to continue criminal proceedings, emphasizing the gravity of impersonation in the context of property disputes involving religious institutions. (Paras 10)

Result: Petition rejected.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and allegations (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. claims and counterclaims in legal proceedings (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9)
3. evidence and investigations supporting allegations (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. identification issues of the accused in procedural context (Para 16 , 17)
5. final order of rejection of the petition (Para 18)

ORDER :

1. In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 are seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.1873/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 416 , 417, 418, 449, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120-B r/w Section 34 IPC (arising out of Cr.No.150/2018 of respondent No.2 Upparpete PS).

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

3. In support of the petition, accused Nos.1 and 2 have contended that defacto complainant has filed PCR.No.7869/2018 before the V ACMM Court, Bengaluru, alleging that accused No.1 has impersonated as Chandramouleshwara Shivacharaya Swamiji of Ramalingeshwar Math ('original pontiff' for short) and accused No.2 is helping him in impersonating as the original pontiff and to claim the property of the Ramalingeshwar Math. The correct name of respondent No.1 who has filed the complaint is Ramachandran Sami, hailing from Tamil Nadu. He was a Maison by profession under one R.S.Gowda, a civil contractor. In O.S.No.4386/2015, filed by him against the Railways, his correct name is given. The said suit came to be dismissed for default on 15.02.2021.

3.1 Sri.Ramalingeshwar Math was established during 15th Century pursuant to the institution of an endowment by the King of Keladi. Accused No.1 Sri.Chandramouleshwarachar Swamiji is the present pontiff of the Math. Even though there was some issues regarding Mathadipathi of the said Math, they were resolved and accused No.1 was appointed as pontiff of the said Math.

3.2 Vide order dated 22.12.2004, the Government has appointed accused No.1 as Mathadipathi. Property bearing Sy.No.18 of Hanumanthapura village, now called as Gandhinagar (majestic) BBMP No.13/2, 6th Cross, Gandhinagar measuring 150 x 44 yards was gifted by Mathadipathi of Thippashetty Math to Ramalingeshwar Math for construction of buffalo shed of the Math therein. When BBMP attempted to interfere, accused No.1 filed suit for injunction and it was decreed. Since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property without interruption. When South Western Railways attempted to interfere, accused No.1 filed complaint and also O.S.No.2251/2018 against the railway authorities and secured injunction, after which there is no interference by the Railways.

3.3 When defacto complainant along with rowdy elements gave threat to accused No.1, he filed complaint before respondent No.2 Police. Since they did not take any action, he filed PCR.No.5641/2018. It was referred to the respondent No.1 Police and registered in Cr.No.122/2018. After completing the investigation, charge sheet is filed in C.C.No.29908/2018.

3.4 As a counter blast, respondent No.1/defacto complainant filed PCR.No.7869/2018. It was registered in Cr.No.150/2018. In respect of the same respondent No.3 Police have filed charge sheet in C.C.No.1873/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 416 , 417, 418, 449, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120-B r/w Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed this petition on the following:

GROUNDS

(i) The very entertaining, registration of the complaint and taking cognizance is illegal and unsustainable. In the complaint, respondent No.1/defacto complainant has stated that the Sarvadikari Shivayogeshwara Shivacharya Mahaswamy and its Managing Trustee Sri.Gangadhara Prasad C has jointly executed GPA dated 02.12.1998 in favour of one Pradeep Diwan and handed over possession of the schedule property by receiving valid consideration. However, in W.P.No.3596/1997 vide order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top