Jodhpur — In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has quashed an FIR filed against a Dalit woman, for allegedly attempting to forcibly enter the Mahakaleshwar temple in Udaipur. The FIR, numbered 217/2024, was registered on May 14, 2024, at the Ambamata Police Station, Udaipur, under Sections 448 (house trespass), 427 (mischief), and 143 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Rajasthan High Court made a significant observation regarding caste-based discrimination in its ruling, stating, "The petitioner’s Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe background cannot be overlooked, especially in light of the fact that access to religious institutions has historically been restricted for marginalized communities. The denial of access to the petitioner, and the subsequent criminal complaint, could very well be an instance of caste-based discrimination. Such discriminatory conduct by the Trustees not only offends the principles of equality but also perpetuates social exclusion, contrary to the constitutional mandate of ensuring dignity for all citizens, particularly those from oppressed communities."

The case, heard by Justice Arun Monga, centered around a complaint from the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, alleging that accused Sapna Nimawat and others had caused chaos at the temple by attempting to forcibly enter the premises. The FIR was lodged based on the testimony of Sub-Inspector Rajiv Sharma, who claimed to have witnessed the incident.

However, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR was an abuse of the legal process, initiated with ulterior motives, especially since the temple trustees themselves had not filed any complaint. The court also noted that the video evidence presented did not substantiate the claim of forceful entry or property damage.

Key Observations by the Court

• Lack of Criminal Intent: Justice Monga highlighted that for the invocation of Sections 448, 427, and 143 of the IPC, criminal intent (mens rea) is a prerequisite. The court found no evidence to suggest that the petitioner intended to cause harm or damage, as her primary objective was to access the temple, a lawful act in itself.

• Public Access to Temples: The court emphasized that temples are public places of worship, open to all citizens regardless of caste or social standing. Justice Monga noted that the temple trustees had erected barricades, which hindered public access, and this act violated the petitioner’s fundamental right to practice her religion, as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

• Caste-Based Discrimination: The court took into account the petitioner’s Scheduled Caste background, stating that historically marginalized communities have faced restricted access to religious institutions. The denial of access to the petitioner, followed by the filing of a criminal complaint, could be seen as caste-based discrimination, the court remarked.

• Trust’s Motives in Question: The court raised concerns over the fact that the FIR was filed by a Sub-Inspector who claimed to have witnessed the incident, rather than the trustees of the temple. This, according to the court, cast doubts on the credibility of the FIR.

• No Evidence of Force or Damage: Justice Monga also dismissed the evidence presented by the trust’s counsel, which included photographs showing a woman attempting to cross a barricade. The court found no indication of force being used to break the barricade.

After reviewing the evidence, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the FIR and all related proceedings. The court reiterated that temple trustees cannot act in a manner that denies anyone, particularly marginalized communities, the right to worship.