This article is part 2 of a short series- read previous article here:
Why Tulja Bhavani under Siege: Matter of Temple Fund Misappropriation
Condition of Investigation and FIR in Tulja Bhavani Shrine Fraud Case: Background and Administrative Inquiries (1991 to 2020)
The origin of the financial investigation involves allegations of widespread misappropriation during the auctioning of donation boxes commonly known as singhasan hundi at the Sri Tuljabhavani Temple in Tuljapur between 1991 and 2009. Internal investigation reports, including findings by the Shankar Kengar Committee, recorded substantial financial discrepancies amounting to approximately 8.45 crore rupees alongside unaccounted offerings of gold and silver.[1] Although these initial inquiry reports highlighted serious irregularities involving private auction bidders and administrators, the state administration refrained from registering formal police cases for over a decade.[2]
Bombay High Court Directive for FIR and Investigation in May 2024
In response to a Criminal Public Interest Litigation filed by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court examined the legality of closing the probe. On May 9, 2024, the division bench comprising Justice Mangesh S. Patil and Justice Shailesh Brahme set aside the state government’s decision to drop the investigation. Paragraph 10 of the judgment of High Court notes that on June 15, 2022, the Home Department issued a communication to the Director General of Police deciding not to conduct a departmental inquiry or pursue further criminal action.[3] The High Court ruled that when prima facie evidence discloses cognizable offenses involving public donation funds, the executive cannot preemptively refuse to initiate the criminal process. The court ordered the immediate registration of a formal FIR and directed an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police in the State Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to conduct a thorough investigation.
The judgment in this matter, delivered by the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, deals with multiple core legal provisions across criminal procedure, substantive penal law, and public trust regulation. At the procedural foundation of the case lies the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which strictly defines the statutory duties of law enforcement under the Code of Criminal Procedure.[4] The core principle highlighted from this precedent is that whenever information provided to the police or uncovered through preliminary inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offense, the registration of a First Information Report is mandatory. The law leaves no room for administrative discretion, police latitude, or executive unwillingness to refuse registering an FIR once a prima facie case of cognizable crime is established. The court evaluated whether the state administration could bypass this mandatory statutory requirement by repeatedly ordering internal re-enquiries to avoid invoking formal criminal proceedings.
From a substantive penal perspective, the court examined allegations of financial irregularities, embezzlement of offerings, and fraudulent handling of donation box auctions under key sections of the Indian Penal Code. The inquiry reports submitted during the proceedings recommended registering offenses under following IPC sections:
- IPC Section 109 of Abetment, if the act abetted is committed in consequence, equivalent to Section 49 BNS
- IPC Section 406 of Punishment for criminal breach of trust, now Section 316(2) in BNS
- IPC Section 409 of Criminal breach of trust by public servant, banker, merchant or agent, now Section 316(5) in BNS
- IPC Section 420 of Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, which equivalent to Section 318(4) in BNS
- IPC Section 467 of Forgery of valuable security, will, etc., equivalent to Section 338 of BNS
- IPC Section 468 related to Forgery for purpose of cheating, equivalent to Section 336(3) BNS
- IPC Section 471 of Using as genuine a forged document, equivalent to Section 340(2) of BNS
- IPC Section 34 of Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention equivalent to Section 3(5) of BNS.[5]
Section 409 is particularly central because the temple management included ex-officio government officers like District Collectors, Sub-Divisional Officers, and Tahsildars who held fiduciary control over the shrine’s properties and donations.[6] Additionally, the regulatory provisions of Section 67 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, were invoked alongside civil orders passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner under Application No. 3/2010, establishing that auctioning the singhasan hundi was inherently illegal and violative of statutory trust governance rules.[7]
Legal Reasoning of High Court
The legal reasoning of the High Court centers on the principle that the executive cannot preemptively foreclose criminal law mechanisms when prima facie evidence discloses cognizable offenses. The bench observed that three separate inquiry reports prepared by the Criminal Investigation Department had consistently uncovered evidence of widespread embezzlement, estimated at around 8.46 crore rupees between 1991 and 2009. The court rejected the State Government’s contention that the passage of time, lack of concrete records, or the involvement of former ex-officio government trustees made registration of an FIR an exercise in futility. The judges emphasized that an administrative body or police authority cannot prejudge the outcome of a trial at the preliminary stage. Whether the evidence collected during investigation is sufficient to secure a conviction or file a charge-sheet can only be determined after a full and threadbare investigation is conducted, not before the criminal justice process has even been initiated.[8]
Furthermore, the court scrutinized the state’s pattern of repeatedly ordering re-enquiries whenever an investigation report recommended prosecuting those involved. The court noted that shifting positions between earlier detailed CID reports and the final 2020 report, which attempted to downplay the fraud as mere negligence due to the passage of time, did not negate the core undisputed fact that financial misappropriation and illegal auctions had taken place. Because public donation funds and sacred offerings were mishandled, public interest demanded that the matter be brought to its logical conclusion through formal statutory channels rather than administrative closure.[9]
Operative Part of the Order
In the operative part of the judgment, the High Court formally disposed of the Criminal Public Interest Litigation by issuing clear directions to initiate formal criminal prosecution. The court ordered that two prior CID inquiry reports, specifically the report dated September 27, 2017, and the detailed report dated February 21, 2018, be registered as a formal First Information Report at the Tuljapur Police Station. To ensure a thorough and independent probe, the court directed that the investigation be conducted by an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police within the State Criminal Investigation Department, Maharashtra State. The appointed investigating officer was instructed to commence the investigation immediately and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.[10]
[1] Ibid 1
[2] “Embezzlement of valuables and money by ‘Mandir Sansthan’ of Shri Tuljabhavani Temple”, Hindu Janjagruti Samiti, Dt. 25.8.2016, Available at: https://www.hindujagruti.org/news/87830.html
[3] Hindu Janjagruti Samiti v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Natural Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:10026-DB] Dt. 9.5.2024
[4] Ibid 9 Para 15.
[5] “Corresponding Section Table Of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, (BNS)”, NCRB Sankalan of New Criminal Laws, Available at: https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/SankalanPortal/SectionTableBNS.html
[6] Ibid 9 Para 11
[7] Ibid 9 Para 15
[8] Ibid 9 Para 19, 20, 21
[9] Ibid 9 Para 19, 20, 21
[10] Ibid 9, Para 24