JUDGMENT 1. -This petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. by Shri Swetambar Sampradaya (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'). It is directed against the order dated 20th January, 1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Criminal Revisions No. 1/81 (5/81) and 2/81 (26/81) arising out of proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. 2. In village Chainpur, under P. S. Kachhola in tehsil Mandalgarh of district Bhilwara, there is an old temple of Shri Parshwanathji known as the chavleshwar Parshwanath temple (hereinafter referred to as 'the temple'). A dispute arose between the persons belonging to the Digambar Sampradaya of the Jain religion and persons belonging to the Swetambar Sampradaya of Jain religion with regard to the control and management of the temple. On 28th February, 1974 the S.H.O., P.S. Kachhola submitted a report under section 145 Cr. P.C. in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mandalgarh. In the said report, it was stated that since centuries, persons belonging to Swetamber as well as Digamber Sampradaya were worshipping in the temple and that the Digambar samaj had placed iron shutters on the temple, which was opposed by the Swetambar samaj and the said shutters were broken open and as a result proceedings under section 107. Cr. P. C. had been initiated against the persons belonging to both the sects on 21st March, 1972 and that the said proceedings I were pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mandalgarh. In the said report, it was further stated that on 24th May, 1973 Digambar Samaj again placed doors on the temple, which were also broken by Swetambar Samaj on 13th June, 1973 and that on 25th February, 1974, there was an altercation between persons belonging to the Swetambar Samaj and persons belonging to the Digambar Samaj and in the said incident, ten persons had suffered serious injuries and a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325 and 307 I. P C. had been registered and was under investigation. In the said report, it was further stated that persons belonging to both the sects were claiming rights over the temple and doors were being put the same were being broken and as a result, there was constant breach of peace. In the report aforesaid, it was prayed that proceedings for attachment of the temple may be taken under section 145. In the report aforesaid, it was prayed that proceedings for attachment of the temple may be taken under section 145. Cr.P.C. and suitable orders be passed after directing both the parties to produce the proof of their respective title or otherwise there was likelihood of breach of peace. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mandalgarh, passed a preliminary order on 1st March, 1974 wherein it was stated that disputes have arisen between the Digambar Samaj as well as the Swetamber Samaj from time to time regarding the possession and the mode of worship and the placing of doors on the temple and that from the police report and the other record including the affidavit of the S. H. O. P. S. Kachhola, it appeared that there was likelihood of breach of peace on account of the dispute between both the Sampradayas with regard to the temple. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, therefore, directed that the temple be attached under section 145 (4) Cr. P. C. (old) and that after attachment, it may be kept in the possession of the S.H.O.P.S. Kachhola and that status quo should be maintained and that the members of both the Sampradayas be allowed to worship as in the past without indulging in any objectionable behaviour. By the order aforesaid, it was directed that notices may be issued to both the opposite parties under section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. 4. In response to the said preliminary order, notices were issued to both the parties, namely, the Digambar Sampradaya, which was party no.1 and the Swetambar Sampradaya, which was party no.2 5. The Digambar Sampradaya submitted its reply dated 26th June, 1975 wherein it was claimed that the idol installed in the temple is of Digambar sect and the temple is Digambar temple and that since time immemorial, the temple is under the physical possession and management of the Digambar samaj. In the said reply, it was also stated that the persons belonging to the Digambar Samaj have immense faith in the deity installed in the temple and that persons belonging to the Digambar sect come to the temple for "darshan" and worship and that every year on Pauch Badi, the members of Digambar sect assemble at the temple in the form of a mela and from the evening till night, they celebrate the festival by worshipping and chanting bhajans etc. In the said reply, it was also stated that the Digambar Samaj has been maintaining the temple and that the Swetambar Samaj have no right over the same. Along with the said reply, the Digambar Samaj filled a number of affidavits and documents. 6. The Swetambar Samaj filed their reply, dated 27th August, 1975 In the said reply, it was stated that the temple belongs to the Swetambar Samaj and the idol of Parshwanath Bhagwan in the temple is of the Swetambar sect and that the temple was built by the Swetmbar Sampradaya and that the building of the temple also accords with the customs and practices of the Swetambar Sampradaya. In the said reply, it was also stated that the worship in the temple is being done daily in accordance with the rites of the Swetambar Sampradaya and that "Keshar" was being offered to the deity daily. According to the said reply, every year on Paush Badi 9, pilgrims assemble at the temple and that the "Pooja" of the deity is performed in accordance with the rites of the Swetambar sect from 9 A. M. and that clothes as well as "mukut" are adorned on the deity and at that time members of the Digambar sect also have "darshan" of the deity and that they have never protested against the aforesaid mode of worship in accordance with the Swetambar rites. Along with the aforesaid reply, certain affidavits and documents were also filed. 7. It appears that during the course of the enquiry, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mandalgarh, had inspected the site on 15th December, 1980 and December 30/31, 1980. 8. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mangalgarh, after taking into consideration the affidavits as well as the documents that were produced by both the parties, passed the order dated 15th January, 1981, wherein he held that on the date of the passing of the preliminary order dated 1st March, 1974 as well as two to six months before the passing of the preliminary order, the Digambar Samaj had the Possession, control and management of the temple, its property and the idol installed in the temple. The sub-Divisional Magistrate also held that the festival for celebrating the birth of Shri Parshwanathji is held at the temple from paush Badi 9 to 9 A.M, of paush Badi 10 and that persons belonging to the Swetambar sect also participate in that festival and further that in that festival first the persons belonging to the Digambar Samaj worship the temple and that on the Navami from 9 A.M. to 9 A.M. of Dashmi the persons belonging to the Swetembar Samaj worship the idol in accordance with the Swetamber rites by putting the 'mukut', chatra and' pichhwa (cloth behind the head of the deity) and by offering 'Keshar' to the deity and that during this period also, the persons belonging to the Digamber Samaj come to the temple for the purpose of darshan and worship. In view of the findings aforesaid, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order declaring that the Digambar Samaj is in possession, control and management of the temple, its property and the idol installed therein. But taking into consideration the fact that the members of the Swetambar Samaj were also doing worship in the temple every year on paush Badi and paush Badi 10, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed that since the idol has been found to have been belonging to the Digambar Samaj the Digambar Samaj should have the prior right of worship in the temple. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed that the Digambar Samaj would worship the idol in accordance with their rites and customs on Paush Badi 9 from 6 A. M. to 6 P. M. and thereafter Swetambar Samaj may worship the idol in accordance with their rites and customs from 6 P. M. of Paush Badi 9 to 6 A. M. of Paush Badi 10. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate also directed that the persons belonging to both the sects would be entitled to have the "darshan" of the idol at the time when the worship was being conducted in accordance with the customs and rites of either of the sects. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate further directed that the maintenance of the temple would be done by Digambar Samaj and that they would also be entitled to place an iron gate on the temple. 9. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate further directed that the maintenance of the temple would be done by Digambar Samaj and that they would also be entitled to place an iron gate on the temple. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate both the parties filed revision petitions and the said revision petitions were disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara by his order dated 20th January, 1982. The Additional Sessions Judge held that the inspection that was made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 15th December, 1980 and 30/31 December, 1980 was made without notice to the parties and the aforesaid inspection was, therefore, not in accordance with the law and the memos of inspection prepared as a result of the said inspection, could not be taken into consideration. The Additional Sessions Judge was, however of the view that even if the aforesaid memos of inspection were excluded from consideration, it was established from the evidence on record that on the date of the passing of the preliminary order and during the period two to six months prior to the passing of the said order, the temple, its property, and the idol installed there in, were in the possession and control of the Digamber Samaj. The Additional Sessions Judge further found that from the evidence, it was also established that persons belonging to both the sects were entitled to worship the idol. The Additional Sessions Judge was further of the view that right to worship is a civil right and a dispute about the same could only be determined by a civil court and that a dispute relating to the right of worship did not fall within the ambit of section 145 Cr. P. C. The Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, while setting aside the order dated 13th January, 1981 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, declared that on the date of the preliminary order dated 13th January, 1974 and within a period of two months prior to the passing of the said order, the Digambar Samaj was in possession over the temple area and the idol installed therein and that the maintenance and cleaning of the temple as well as the provision for electricity and water at the temple would be made by the Digambar Samaj. The Additional Sessions Judge further directed that in order to ensure that communal amity may to maintained, the persons belonging to both the sects would be entitled to go to the temple for the purpose of "darshan" and worship and that the Digambar Samaj would afford opportunities to the persons belonging to the Swetembar Samaj for worship and that since the right of worship is a civil right, it would be decided by the competent civil court. 10. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioners, namely, the Swetambar Sampradaya, have filed this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. 11. Shri M. M. Singhvi, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge was not right in holding that no order could be passed by a criminal court in respect of a right of worship. According to Shri Singhvi, right to worship in a temple is a right of user of land and is covered by section 147 Cr. P. C. and an appropriate order with regard to the exercise of the said right by the petitioners could be passed in these proceedings and that the Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in holding that no orders with regard to the right of worship could be passed in these proceedings. In support of his aforesaid submission, Shri Singhvi has placed reliance on the decision of a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Dhirendra & Nath Das v. Hrishikesh, AIR 1951 Cal. 93 . Shri Singhvi in this regard has also referred to the preliminary order dated 1st March, 1974 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and has pointed out that in the said preliminary order specific reference has been made to the dispute with regard to the right of worship at the temple, which shows that the proceedings, which were being conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, were both under section 145 as well as under section 147 Cr. P. C. and, therefore, an appropriate order with regard to the exercise of the right of worship could be passed in these proceedings. P. C. and, therefore, an appropriate order with regard to the exercise of the right of worship could be passed in these proceedings. Shri Singhvi has also submitted that in the present case, there is evidence on record to show that persons belonging to the Swetambar Sampradaya have been carrying on worship at the temple in accordance with the rites and customs of the Swetambar Sampradaya from the morning of Paush Badi 9 till the morning of paush Badi 10 and that in view of the said evidence, the Additional Sessions Judge ought to have passed the order permitting persons belonging to the Swetambar Sampradaya to worship the idol in accordance with the rites and customs of the Swetambar Sampradaya from the morning of paush Badi 9 till the morning of Paush Badi 10. 12. Shri N. P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the opposite party, namely, Digambar Sampradaya has, on the other hand, submitted that the right to worship is a civil right which can only be decided by a competent civil court and that no direction can be given with regard to the exercise of the said right in these proceedings. Shri Gupta has further submitted that such a direction cannot be given in these proceedings also for the reason that there is no evidence with regard to the exercise of the said right by members of the Swetambar Sampradaya on Paush Badi 9 and Paush Badi 10 and that on the basis of the material,on record, no such direction can be given. According to Shri Gupta, if the contention of Shri Singhvi is accepted and it is held that the members of the Swetambar Sampradaya are entitled to worship at the temple in accordance with their customs and rites from the morning of paush Badi 9 till the morning of Paush Badi 10, the effect would be that the Digambar Samaj would be completely denied the right to workshop the idol in accordance with the rites and customs of the Digambar Sampradaya even though both the courts below have found that the idol installed at the temple is of Digambar sect. 13. 13. Before dealing with the aforesaid contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, it may be observed that both the courts below have concurrently found that on the date of the preliminary order i. e. 1st March, 1974 and two months prior to the passing of the said preliminary order, the Digambar Samaj was in the possession, control and management of the temple, its property and the idol installed therein. Both the courts have also found that even though the temple, its property and the idol installed therein have been in the possession, control and management of the Digambar Samaj, the members of the Swetambar Samaj have also been visiting the temple for the purpose of "darshan" and worship of the idol. The aforesaid findings recorded by both the courts below, cannot be challenged in these proceedings under section 482 Cr. P. C. The learned counsel for both the parties have also not challenged the said findings before me during the course of arguments. Thus the only question remains for consideration is as to whether any direction can be given in these proceedings with regard to the exercise of right of worship by the persons belonging to the Swetambar Sampradaya at the temple.The provisions of section 147 Cr. P.C. (old) were considered by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High court in Dhirendra Nath Das v. Hrishikesh (and it has been held that the expression "right of user of land or water" contained in section 147 includes the right to worship in a temple. In taking the aforesaid view, the, learned Judges of the Calcutta High court have referred to the decisions of the other High Courts, namely, the High Courts of Madras, Allahabad and Nagpur, which had taken the same view. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it must be held that a criminal court under section 147 Cr. P. C. can deal with a situation where there is dispute concerning right to worship in a temple if such dispute is likely to cause a breach of the peace and it can pass appropriate orders for the exercise of the said right. 14. P. C. can deal with a situation where there is dispute concerning right to worship in a temple if such dispute is likely to cause a breach of the peace and it can pass appropriate orders for the exercise of the said right. 14. In the present case, the preliminary order dated 1st March, 1974 that was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate expressly mentions that there was a dispute between the persons belonging to the Digambar Samaj as well as Swetambar Samaj with regard to the possession of the temple and the right to worship at the temple. This would show that the proceedings that were initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by the preliminary order, were both under section 145 as will as under section 147 Cr. P. C. and it was competent for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge to pass appropriate orders with regard to the right to worship at the temple. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that in these proceedings, the court is not competent to pass any order with regard to the right to worship at the temple.The learned counsel for both parties have also taken me through the evidence on record. From a perusal of the said evidence, I find that both the parties have adduced evidence to show that they were performing worship of the idol on the occasion of the festival held on Paush badi 9 and 10, The evidence is deficient on the question as to how the said worship was being done by the persons belonging to both the sects about the respective timings of the said worship. In the circumstances, it is necessary that the parties should be afforded an opportunity of ad-ducting evidence with regard to the exercise of the right to worship by both the Sampradayas on the occasion of the festival held on Paush Badi 9 and 10 and on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate may pass appropriate order regulating the right to worship by the persons belonging to both the sects on the occasion of the festival held at the temple on Paush Badi 9 and 10. 15. 15. I would, therefore, allow this petition and, while maintaining the directions given by both the courts below that the Digambar Samaj is in the possession, control and management of the temple, its property and the idol installed therein on 1st March, 1974 and two months prior to the passing of the said order and further that the persons belonging to both the sects-have the right of "darshan" and worship of the idol installed in the the temple, I would remand the matter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Mandalgrahf or passing appropriate orders with regard to the exercise of the right to worship the idol by the persons belonging to the Digambar Sampradaya and the persons belonging to the Swetambar Sampradaya on the occasion of the festival held on Paush Badi 9 and 10. For the purpose of passing the aforesaid order, the Sub-Divisional Magistiate shall afford an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence with regard to the exercise of the right of worship at the temple on paush Badi 9 and 10. Since the matter has been pending since 1974, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously within a period of six months. The parties are directed to appear before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mandalgarh on 26th April, 1983. 16. The petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above, The original record may be returned to the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mandalgarh immediately. *******