Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bibi Harmeet Kaur, serving as Mukhya Sewadar of Gurudwara Mehtabgarh Sahib since 2016, filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision No. 176/2025, which affirmed the order dated 03.10.2025 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pilibangan under Sections 164 and 165 BNSS attaching the Gurudwara premises and appointing the Station House Officer as Receiver. The background involved a dispute between the petitioner and another Sikh group over management of the Gurudwara, leading to preventive proceedings and registration of FIR Nos. 243/2025 and 244/2025 at Police Station Goluwala in connection with an incident dated 03.10.2025. The SHO submitted a complaint alleging apprehension of breach of peace, prompting the SDM to attach the property and appoint a receiver. The petitioner's revision was dismissed, leading to the present petition seeking quashing of both orders and all consequential proceedings. Petitioner argued that the orders were mechanical, contrary to record, and that her possession as Mukhya Sewadar was admitted, the dispute related only to management and not to land, water or boundaries, and there was no emergent situation as miscreants were arrested. Reliance was placed on a communication from Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee and the judgment in Ashoknath Chela Kevalnath v. State of Rajasthan. The respondent State, through the Superintendent of Police and SHO, submitted that the dispute commenced on 03.09.2025, police continuously monitored the situation, and upon registration of two FIRs the SDM passed the receiver order considering prevailing circumstances. The High Court observed that the controversy pertained to management and possession of a religious property with rival groups asserting claims. On 03.10.2025, a mob of approximately 50-60 persons armed with lathis, swords, gandasis and spears allegedly attempted to enter the Gurudwara, leading to FIR No. 243/2025 registered on the report of ASI Vijay Singh for offences under Sections 109(1), 121(1), 132, 331(6), 307, 223(b), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 BNS, and FIR No. 244/2025 registered on the petitioner's report for offences under Sections 331(6), 307, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 127(2), 115(2), 223(b) and 61(2) BNS. The Court emphasized that the matter could not be examined narrowly from an individual possession claim because the larger issue was the prevailing law and order situation and imminent possibility of further confrontation, violence and bloodshed. The area had remained disturbed for months with almost daily incidents. The Court also queried whether any statutory provision, rule, practice or convention required central administration of Gurudwaras by SGPC, but neither counsel could point to any. The judgment text ends without a recorded final operative order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Preventive Jurisdiction - Attachment and Appointment of Receiver - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 164, 165 - The Sub-Divisional Magistrate attached the Gurudwara premises and appointed the Station House Officer as receiver based on a complaint alleging apprehension of breach of peace - The petitioner challenged the orders as mechanical and without application of mind - High Court observed that the controversy cannot be examined narrowly from an individual possession claim but must consider the larger law and order situation (Paras 2-3, 7). B) Criminal Procedure - Scope of Preventive Provisions - Management Dispute vs Land/Water/Boundaries - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 164 - Petitioner contended the dispute related only to management of the Gurudwara, not land, water or boundaries, and thus fell outside the ambit of Sections 164 and 165 BNSS - High Court noted the dispute involved competing claims over a religious property with an armed mob attempting entry, indicating the matter was not merely a management dispute - Held that the larger issue of public tranquillity justified preventive action (Paras 3.1, 6-7). C) Evidence - Competing Versions of Incident - Two FIRs for Same Occurrence - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 109(1), 121(1), 132, 331(6), 307, 223(b), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 127(2), 115(2), 61(2) - FIR No. 243/2025 was registered on the report of ASI Vijay Singh, while FIR No. 244/2025 was registered on the petitioner's report regarding the same incident dated 03.10.2025 - High Court observed that existence of two competing versions demonstrates seriousness and sensitivity of the situation - Held that such rival claims necessitate a cautious approach to maintain law and order (Paras 6-7.1). D) Religious Institutions - Management of Gurudwaras - Absence of Statutory Framework for SGPC Control - No specific Act cited - Court queried whether any statutory provision, rule, established practice, tradition or convention required central administration of Gurudwaras by SGPC - Counsel for petitioner and Additional Advocate General could not point to any such provision - Held that without a statutory framework, individual claims of management based solely on SGPC appointment require deeper scrutiny (Paras 8-8.2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned orders dated 03.10.2025 and 18.11.2025 attaching the Gurudwara premises and appointing a receiver under Sections 164 and 165 BNSS were valid; whether the dispute pertained only to management of the Gurudwara and fell outside the ambit of the provisions; whether the petitioner's possession was admitted and therefore preventive action was unwarranted; and whether the prevailing law and order situation justified the attachment.
Law Points
- Preventive jurisdiction under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- 2023
- attachment of property
- appointment of receiver
- law and order situation
- disputed possession of religious property
- management of Gurudwara
- scope of Sections 164 and 165 BNSS
- competing FIRs
