The congregation is a group of people gathering for religious activities regularly. The congregation is to gather where the bishop is present. Any gathering without bishop is not a congregation. The 1st respondent/complainant is a Secretary of the trust, who filed several cases against the Bishop and presbyter before this Court, City Civil Court, and other forums and police and Revenue authorities.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6040 of 2013 pending before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai-15 with respect to the accused Nos.1 & 2.

1. The petitioners are A1 and A2 in a private complaint filed by the respondent for the offence under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC and the same is taken on file as C.C.No.6040 of 2013, pending on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet.

2. During pendency of this petition, the 2nd petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.1135 of 2019 to transpose the 1st petitioner as 2nd respondent/accused No.1. Since the 1st petitioner had retired from his designated post as Bishop and prefers to make his submissions and arguments in the capacity of party in person. This Court by order dated 25.01.2019 transposed the 1st petitioner as 2nd respondent.

3. The gist of the case is that the 1st respondent is a member of St.George’s Cathedral Trust, previously he was a principal of D.B.Jain College, Chennai and a professor of English language and earned respect among students, staffs and others, he rendered yeomen service to the Cathedral Church and served as Pastorate Committee member, Secretary of the Pastorate Committee, Madras Diocesan Council Member and was appointed as Trustee of the St.George’s Cathedral Trust in 1999 hereinafter referred as Trust and has been functioning as its Secretary-Trust from 2000.

4. The 2nd respondent/accused was Bishop of the Diocese of Madras, Church of South India and the petitioner is the Presbyter-in-charge of the St.George’s Cathedral Church, Chennai, who in October 2012 was appointed as Clergy Trustee of the trust to preside over the meetings of the trust, with an ulterior motive of taking control of the trust. There is no provision for Clergy trust in the rules for administration of the trust. The appointments of trustee can be made by the Bishop only in consultation with the existing trustees. This appointment of clergy trustee was rejected by four existing trustees namely the petitioner, M.M.Rajendran, Senior trustee, M.E.Feliz, Trustee and one Lalitha Sukumar, Trustee. During the year 2000 the patta of the trust properties were changed by fabricating documents in the name of Madras Diocesan Trust Association, which is under the control of the 2nd respondent/accused. The 1st respondent/complainant took steps to get this illegal patta transfer cancelled by appealing to the District Revenue Officer, Chennai. The DRO after proper enquiry cancelled the patta and restored the patta to the trust in December 2012. The 1st respondent/complainant had filed C.S.No.731 of 2012 against the Bishop and presbyter seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from acting as Clergy Trustee and to declare invalid the appointment. During July 2013 a complaint was lodged to the Commissioner of Police. There are cases and counter cases between the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent failed in their attempts in taking control of the trust had developed animus against the trustees.

5. The 2nd respondent during a sermon on 02.12.2012 went to the extent of calling from the Pulpit, a holy platform inside the St.George’s Cathedral Church, Chennai, the trustees as “Devils” which is construed in the Christian religion as personification of all evils in the world. The respondent/complainant sent a letter dated 03.12.2012 to the 2nd respondent objecting for calling so. Even though the said letter was received, there was no reply or any denial from the 2nd respondent.

6. Thereafter the respondent/complainant had sent a legal notice dated 22.08.2013 enclosing the earlier letter to the 1st accused dated 03.12.2012 calling upon him to undo the damage that he had publicly done before the entire congregation, by expressing regret before the congregation for making such defamatory and uncharitable remarks a