In a landmark judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has quashed an FIR filed against Sapna Nimawat, a Scheduled Caste (SC) devotee, who was accused of trespassing into the Mahakaleshwar Mahadev Ji Siddh Dham temple in Udaipur. The court ruled that restricting access to the temple by the trustees was a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to worship, while raising concerns about caste-based discrimination in the incident.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from FIR No. 217/2024, lodged on May 14, 2024, at Police Station Ambamata, Udaipur, following an incident where the petitioner, Sapna Nimawat, and others allegedly attempted to enter the Mahakaleshwar temple by cutting through a lock. Sub-Inspector Rajiv Sharma, who witnessed the event, filed the complaint, accusing Nimawat of criminal trespass, unlawful assembly, and mischief under Sections 448, 143, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The trustees of the temple had allegedly erected barricades to prevent devotees from entering certain areas, sparking the confrontation. Nimawat’s defense, led by her lawyer Mr. Tushar Moad, argued that she was merely exercising her right to worship and that the barricades constituted an illegal restriction on public access to a place of worship.
Legal Issues Involved
The court’s ruling addressed key legal concerns, including:
1. Fundamental Right to Worship: Can private temple trustees legally restrict access to a public place of worship?
2. Caste-Based Discrimination: Was the petitioner’s Scheduled Caste status a factor in the restriction and subsequent legal action?
3. Criminal Intent (Mens Rea): Did the petitioner’s actions amount to criminal trespass or mischief in the absence of malicious intent?
Key Observations of the Court
Justice Arun Monga, presiding over the case, made several critical observations:
– Violation of Fundamental Rights: The court emphasized that “a temple is a public place of worship, accessible to all citizens regardless of caste, creed, or social standing.” Any attempts by trustees to block access, particularly using barricades or locks, were deemed unconstitutional and violative of Article 25 of the Constitution.
– Lack of Criminal Intent: The court held that none of the sections of the IPC invoked in the FIR were applicable, as there was no criminal intent. “The petitioner’s primary objective was to access a place of worship, a lawful act in itself. There is no evidence that the petitioner intended to cause harm or damage,” the court noted.
– Abuse of Legal Process: Justice Monga questioned the legitimacy of the complaint, pointing out that the FIR was filed by a Sub-Inspector rather than the temple trustees, which raised doubts about the intent behind the legal action.
– Caste-Based Exclusion: In a scathing remark, the court acknowledged the petitioner’s Scheduled Caste background and the historical exclusion faced by marginalized communities in places of worship. “The denial of access… could very well be an instance of caste-based discrimination,” observed Justice Monga, calling such conduct unacceptable and unconstitutional.
Decision of the Court
Concluding that the FIR was an abuse of the legal process, Justice Monga quashed FIR No. 217/2024 and all subsequent proceedings, stating that no prima facie case of trespass, mischief, or unlawful assembly was made out against the petitioner. He also reiterated the duty of temple trustees to ensure open access to all devotees, regardless of their social or caste background.
Case Details
– Case Title: Sapna Nimawat v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
– Case Number: S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3421/2024
– Bench: Justice Arun Monga
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Mr. Tushar Moad
– Respondents’ Counsel: Mr. H.S. Jodha (Public Prosecutor), Mr. Kailash Khatri for Respondent No. 2.
