Back
2023 Supreme(Ker) 219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J.
VARGHESE ABRAHAM S/O M.C. ABRAHAM – Petitioner
Versus
SHINU P. VARGHESE S/O P.C. VARGHESE – Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 8035 of 2017, Crl. M.C. Nos. 3446, 6608 of 2018
Decided On : 27-03-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: GEORGE ABRAHAM PACHAYIL, AJEESH S. BRITE, ARUN PAUL KAPRASSERY, JEBI MATHER HISHAM.
For the Respondents: S. NITHIN, VISHAK K. JOHNSON, G. SUDHEER.
Point of Law: Section 499 IPC reads as Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 499, 500 - Quashing of proceedings - Elected members - Defamatory statements against party - Petitions have been filed seeking quashing of proceedings against petitioners - Extraordinary and inherent powers of Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on Court to act according to its whims or caprice.
Findings of the Court:
Power of quashing criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection, and that too in rarest of rare cases and Court cannot be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in FIR, unless allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion - Extraordinary and inherent powers of Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on Court to act according to its whims or caprice - Facts of present case do not come under any of categories of cases enumerated in State of Haryana (supra) - Therefore, further proceedings on file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court are not liable to be quashed.
Result: Crl. M.C. dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioners in these Crl. M.C. are accused in C.C. Nos. 164, 165 of 2015, and 23/2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. They are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court below took cognizance of the offences based on the private complaints filed by the respective respondents in the Crl. M.C. These petitions have been filed seeking quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are elected members in the Parish governing committee of an Orthodox Church’s Parish named St. Johns Salem Orthodox Church, Ayroor, under the ecclesiastical governance of the Metropolitan Bishop of Nilakkal diocese in Pathanamthitta District. The party respondents in the Crl. M.C. are members of the Parish. There exist differences of opinion among two groups of members in the Church.
3. The party respondents had filed a representation dated 5.12.2014 before the Head of the Church, the Malankara Metropolitan Catholicose, who referred the same to the Metropolitan Bishop of the Nilakkal Diocese for inquiry. The Parish governing committee prepared Annexure A2 statement signed by 32 members of the parish and submitted to the Metropolitan Bishop. The statement was also circulated among the public.
4. The party respondents alleged that Annexure A2 contains defamatory statements against them.
5. They filed the above-referred private complaints before the Court below. After conducting inquiry, the learned Magistrate issued process to the petitioners.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, and the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions:
There is no defamatory element in Annexure-A2 representation/statement. The petitioners signed Annexure A2, not in their interest or capacity, but they represented the entire Parish members. Annexure A2 representation/statement was addressed to the Head of the Church, the Malankara Metropolitan Catholicose, who is the authority to hear the grievances of both factions.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Annexure-A2 representation/ statement comes under the Eighth Exception of Section 499 IPC, hence they are not liable to be prosecuted based on it.
9. The learned counsel for the party respondents made the following submissions:
Annexure-A2 contains severe defamatory statements against the party respondents. The Metropolitan Bishop to whom Annexure A2 was presented is not the lawful authority as referred to in the Eighth Exception of Section 499 IPC. Annexure A2, at any rate, cannot be treated as a reply to Annexure-A1 complaint filed by the party respondents. Annexure-A1 complaint was not filed before the Malankara Metropolitan Catholicose.
10. Annexure-A2 contains the following statements:
Sri. Philipose Mathai Mannakunnil and Sri. Shiju P. Varghese (party respondents) are hated ones in the community. Sri. Philipose Mathai is immature. The Priest and other members of his family are malicious creatures.
11. Prima-facie Annexure-A2 contains defamatory statements against the party respondents. Now, the question to be considered is whether the petitioners are entitled to protection under the Eighth Exception of Section 499 IPC. The Eighth Exception of Section 499 IPC reads thus:
“Eighth Exception - Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person - It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.”
The Eighth Exception of Section 499 IPC is to be read along with Section 52 IPC. Section 52 reads thus:
“52. Good faith - Nothing is said to be done or believed in “good faith” which is done or believed without due care and attention.”
The Eighth Exception of Section 499 IPC provides that it is not defamation to prefer in good
