John Michael Cunha, J. - (1.) Respondent No.2 claiming to be a member of Sri. Vyasaraja Mutt, lodged an information with T. Narsipura police, Mysore District alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating, conspiracy by Sri. J. Uddhavachar and the present Peetadhipathi of Sri. Vysayaraja Mutt and W/o. Uddhavachar and the manager of the branch Sri. Narasimha Murthy. Based on this information/complaint, FIR was registered in Cr.No.150/2013 under Sections 409, 420, 120-B and 381 Indian Penal Code showing the petitioners as accused Nos. 2, 4 and 3 therein. Petitioners have sought to quash the said FIR and the consequent investigation commenced by respondent No.1/Police. I have heard learned Senior counsel Sri. C.V. Nagesh appearing for the petitioners and Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. C.V. Sudhindra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
(2.) Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the complainant is a pro bono publico and a member of a self-styled organization which has come into existence during the year 2005 with the sole object of destablizing Sri Sri Vyasaraja Mutt, Sosale and its Peetadhipathi. He is instrumental in instituting various proceedings against Sri. Vyasaraja Mutt and its Peetadhipathi and the present complaint is one of such attempt made by the complainant/respondent No.2 who is a disgruntled and a frustrated person in not getting appointed as Peetadhipathi of Sri Sri Vyasaraja Mutt, Sosole. The allegations made in the complaint are palpably false and baseless and do not constitute the ingredients of any criminal offences, much less, offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 120B and 381 Indian Penal Code. Insofar as petitioner No.1 viz., Sri Sri Sri Vidya Manohara Theertharu is concerned, no allegations are found in the complaint showing his involvement or complicity in the alleged offences. These averments even if accepted on their face value do not make out the offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 120B and 381 Indian Penal Code against petitioner No.1. Even with regard to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, there are no specific allegations that they were entrusted with the properties of the Mutt at any point of time so as render them liable for prosecution for the alleged theft of parts of silver chariot. Placing reliance on the orders passed by Government of Karnataka, learned counsel has emphasized that the Government of Karnataka by its order dated 26.05.2012 had appointed Sri. K. Jayraj, Additional Chief Secretary as the Administrator of Sri Sri Vyasaraja Mutt, Sosale and a committee was constituted to guide the Administrator. Therefore, there was absolutely no basis for the complainant/respondent No.2 to allege that the properties in question were in the actual or constructive possession of the Peetadhipathi of the Mutt. In support of his submission, learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PRATIBHA vs. RAMESHWARI DEVI AND OTHERS, 2007 12 SCC 369. and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ANAND KUMAR MOHATTA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND ANOTHER in Crl.A.No.1395 of 2018 disposed of on November 15th, 2018.
(3.) Complainant/Respondent No.2 has filed a detailed statement of objections denying the contentions raised in the petition. Referring to the averments made in the complaint, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has highlighted that the allegations made in the complaint prima-facie disclose commission of offences by the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 being the Peetadhipathi of the Mutt was in control, supervision and administration of the Mutt. Appointment of Administrator to manage the properties of the Mutt do not affect the fundamental rights of the Matadhipathi. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Sri. Vidya Manohara Teertha Swamigalu vs. The State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.17370/2012 and has emphasized that Matadhipathi though has some amount of control or supervision over the administration of the Mutt, he does not become owner of the properties of the Mutt and therefore, question of deprivation of the property by merely appointing an Administrator at the request of devotees/denomination does not take away the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution. To buttress his argument, learned counsel has referred to the following decisions:- 1. Vidhya Varuthi Theertha vs. Baluswamy Iyer, 1922 AIR(PC) 123. 2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 AIR(SC) 282. 3. H.H. Sundhundra Thirtha Swamiar vs. Commissioner for Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Mysore, 1963 AIR(SC) 966. 4. A. A. Gopalakrishnan vs. Cochin Devaswom Board and Ors., 2007 AIR(SC) 3162. 5. Sri. Vidyamanohara Thirtha Swamigalu vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.17370/2012. 6. Neelakantrao vs. Vajinath Sway and others - RSA No.7501/2010.;