IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that allegations in the FIR were baseless, lacking evidence, and emphasized the necessity for substantiated claims in criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

(Arun Monga, J.)

1. Quashing of an FIR No.0452/2024 dated 13.08.2024 registered at Police Station Sukher, Udaipur under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 126(2), 351(2)/(3) and 74 of BNS, 2023 is sought herein.

2. Petitioner No.1 is a 71 years old senior citizen and works as one of the security personnel at the Eklingji temple, Kailashpuri and so is petitioner No.2, a security guard in the same temple. Complainant is wife of a serving Judicial officer in the State of Rajasthan.

3. Factual background as pleaded in the petition herein is as follows:

3.1 The Eklingji Temple at Kailashpuri (Udaipur) is an ancient temple believed to be over 1,300 years old. The main deity, a five-faced Lord Shiva carved from black stone, is regarded as the ruling deity of the former Mewar State, with the erstwhile kings serving as its custodians. The temple was built in the 8th century AD by Shri Bappa Rawal.

3.2 An unfortunate incident occurred on August 13, 2024, involving the complainant's husband, Shri Siddharth Shankar Sharma, a Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate posted at Newai, Tonk. However, claiming himself to be a High Court judge, he allegedly intruded into the queue of devotees. Notwithstanding, when he was asked to follow the discipline, he became rather abusive. He also engaged in a heated exchange with the temple security. He even attempted to assault the security personnel, leading to a scuffle, which was captured on the temple's CCTV.

3.3 It is pleaded further that reviewing the CCTV footage shows that Shri Sharma instigated the incident while visiting the temple with his family and friends. It is stated that the temple administration was not informed of his visit in advance; had they been notified, special arrangements could have been made for his visit. Despite the large number of devotees due to the Savan month, he chose to jump the queue which resulted in the unsavory incident as above.

3.4 It is pleaded that subsequently with an intent to discredit the temple administration, Shri Sharma, through his wife Smt. Aayushi Sharma, lodged the false FIR which is assailed herein.

4. In light of the aforesaid factual narrative, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that the petitioners have been falsely implicated on the basis of baseless allegations. From the bare perusal of the FIR and the available record, no offence, as alleged is made out against the petitioners. The FIR though alleges offenses under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including rioting and assault, but the evidence shows that the alleged incidents did not occur as described. He relies on pen drive containing the CCTV footage and video recordings in support of his contention that the FIR is frivolous and motivated by ulterior intentions.

4.1 He submits that a bare perusal of the FIR and available records shows that no offense, as alleged, is substantiated against the petitioners. Even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted at face value, they do not ex-facie constitute any offense.

4.2 Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner would urge that the complainant's husband, misusing his position as a Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, has got a false FIR registered under Sections 191(2) (Rioting), 115(2) (Voluntary Causing Hurt), 126(2) (Wrongful Restraint), 351(2) and 351(3) (Intimidation), and Section 74 (Assault or use of criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty). He contends that the FIR is based on false and fabricated facts, due to a personal vendetta on being merely asked to wait in the queue. The Judicial Officer has put his wife on the forefront to act proxy for him and she has instituted criminal proceedings on the asking of her husband. The CCTV footage would show that the entire incident was instigated by Shri Siddharth Shankar Sharma, who was the aggressor. He would contend that the arrogant and unbecoming conduct of the judicial officer is recorded in t