1. The petitioner was the former Metropolitan of the Kandanad Diocese, appointed by the Patriarch of Antioch. He has preferred this petition to quash Annexure-I complaint and Annexure-J order in C.M.P.No.4796/2011 in C.C.No.85/2012, of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha. The 1st respondent, who is the Metropolitan of Kandanad East Diocese filed a complaint in the CJM, Court, Thodupuzha, for the offences u/ss.423, 465, 468 and 471 r/w.34 IPC and u/s.120B of IPC against the petitioner and two others, which was forwarded to the Police Station Thodupuzha for investigation u/s.156(3) of Cr.PC. and after investigation the Police referred the case. The petitioner contended that prima facie case is not made out in the complaint and if trial is proceeded, it is a mere abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the petitioner prays to quash Annexures-I and J by invoking the inherent jurisdiction.

2. The 1st respondent, who is the Metropolitan of Kandanad East Diocese is functioning according to the Constitution framed in the year 1934. There are several churches under the control of this Diocese and St.Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church, Thodupuzha is one of the churches. Every religious and spiritual functions of the said Church are executed as per the directions of the 1st respondent. The Priest and Assistant Priest were also appointed and transferred by him. The petitioner is a Metropolitan consecrated in the "yakobaya Suriyani Christian Sabha' which was constituted in the year 2002. He is neither a member, priest nor a Metropolitan of the Malankara Orthodox Suriyani sabha and he has declared his non-allegiance to the 1934 constitution of the said Sabha. He does not have any right at all in the properties of St. Mary's church. That being the position, on 7.12.2004, the petitioner and the other accused executed a gift deed of the properties covered by Annexure-B, as 3969/2004 of SRO Thodupuzha and thereby committed the alleged offence. They have no right over the property held by the 1st respondent. In the circumstances, the first respondent filed Annexure-G complaint in the chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, which was referred by the Thodupuzha Police mentioning it as a civil dispute. Hence the protest complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Annexure-E Gift deed was executed on 7.12.2004 in the name of the Trustees with the consent and concurrence of the parishioners of St. Mary's Church. The 1st respondent was metropolitan till 1999 with the Patriarch, subsequently he defected and joined with Orthodox faction. The petitioner was appointed as the Metropolitan in the year 2002 and an election was conducted in the year 2004. Subsequent to that, a resolution was passed by the parish committee and property was transferred by Annexure-E deed. The Police verified the Gift deed and referred the case by Annexure-H refer report. If that be so, prima facie case is not made out and the issuance of process without considering the police report is against law and to be quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on the decisions in Parameswaran Nair v. Surendran [2009(1) KLT 794], Chandrika B v. Santhosh and another [2014 (1) KLD 79(SC)] and Kader v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 262].

4. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that as per the Constitution of 1934, the 2nd respondent is the Metropolitan and is having control over all Churches under his Diocese including St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church, Thodupuzha. As per gift deed No.5078/54 of SRO, Thodupuzha an extent of 10 cents of land and buildings of Thodupuzha Village were gifted in the name of the predecessor of the 1st respondent. After that, the 1st respondent was consecrated as the Metropolitan of the said Diocese and is managing the property as the Metropolitan of the Diocese. Thereafter, on 7.12.2004, the petitioner and other accused forged documents and executed a gift deed No.3969/2004 SRO, Thod