Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Reserves Verdict in Raju Tampering Conviction Plea
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Krishna Devi – Appellant
Versus
Lal Chand – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
Judgment
Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the Complaint No.RT-18/09.05.2016 dated 19.08.2015 filed by respondent No.1 under Sections 452/ 379/ 295/ 435/ 506/ 148/149/120-B IPC (Annexure P-5), the Summoning order under Sections 148, 295 read with Section 149 IPC passed by the JMIC, Moga dated 23.05.2018 (Annexure P-6) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the pleadings are that petitioner No.1 is the real sister of respondent No.2. Their father late Munish Ram vide Transfer Deed dated 23.05.2005 transferred his land measuring 40 kanals 8 marlas in favour of the petitioner No.1. The said transfer deed was challenged by the respondent No.2 by way of filing of a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.57 of 2006 for declaration to the effect that the suit property was ancestral/coparcenary and respondent No.2/complainant was in possession thereof.
3. The said Civil Suit bearing CS No.57 of 2006 filed by respondent No.2 was dismi
The court quashed the complaint and summoning order, ruling that the proceedings were an abuse of process, as established civil court findings negated the allegations made in the criminal complaint.
The determination of a temple's status as public or private hinges on the right of public access and the evidence of dedication to public worship, not merely on the presence of public worship.
A temple is classified as private if it lacks features of public worship and management rests with a specific community, as established through historical evidence and refusal of public rights.
Parties in religious disputes can assert rights based on historical practices and public endowment; possession can confer title through adverse possession.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for relief sought in writ petitions to be within the scope of the general direction contained in the order of the Apex Court dated ....
The distinction between a private and a public endowment is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter they are the general public or a class thereof.
The court directed the HR & CE Department to identify legitimate claimants of a religious institution's management, emphasizing the importance of historical context and legislative amendments.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article