Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4197
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.SOMARAJAN, J
CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALANCHERRY, – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
Crl.MC/2138/2020
B.KUMAR, SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.), SMT.NISHA GEORGE, SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.GIMMY P ANTONY, SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM, SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR), SRI.N.RAJESH, K.V.SABU
The right to alienate church property under canon law does not override statutory requirements; improper sale processes can lead to criminal liability.
Headnote:
Property - Alienation - IPC Section List: [120B, 406, 409, 418, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 34] - The court assessed allegations of criminal conspiracy and misappropriation in property transactions related to the Syro Malabar Church, interpreting provisions of Canon law and civil statutes to determine the legality of the sales and the authority of the Bishop to alienate church properties.
Fact of the Case:
Multiple complaints were filed alleging offences concerning the alienation of properties belonging to the Syro Malabar Church, by the Major Archbishop who was accused of misusing his authority without adhering to canon law or church byelaws, which led to substantial financial losses.
Issues: Whether the allegations of misappropriation and the validity of the complaints regarding the sale of church properties were maintainable in view of previous complaints and the jurisdictional implications under IPC and related laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the right of a Bishop in an Episcopal Church, while significant, does not extend to unqualified alienation of church properties, which must be subject to canon law and compliance with procedural statutes such as the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Final Decision: All Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are dismissed with directions for further investigation by the state regarding the properties in question.
ORDER
A batch of seven cases have come up in relation to the alienation of properties purportedly belonging to Syro Malabar Church viz, Crl.M.C.Nos.8936/2019, 205/2020, 1409/2020, 1414/2020, 2136/2020, 2138/2020 and 9115/2019.
2. One Joshy Varghese had filed a complaint in C.M.P.No.5003/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakkanad alleging commission of offences under Section 120 B, 406, 409, 418, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468 and 34 IPC against the Major Archbishop of Syro Malabar Church and another. After preliminary enquiry in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate took cognizance under Annexure A2 order and issued summons to the petitioner for the offences coming under the purview of Section 120 B, 406, 423 r/w Section 34 . A revision was preferred against Annexure A2 order before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam under Section 397 Cr.P.C. in Crl.R.P.No.20/2019. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision under Annexure A3 order. It is against the aforesaid two orders and to quash the entire proceedings, the petitioner Cardinal Mar George Alencherry, the Major Archbishop of Syro Malabar Church challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.C.No.8936/2019.
3. Crl.M.C.Nos.205/2020, 1409/2020, 1414/2020, 2136/2020 and 2138/2020 were filed by Cardinal Mar George Alencherry with respect to the complaints in which he is the accused. It is submitted that the first complaint at Maradu was numbered as C.M.P.No.2/2018 wherein the learned Magistrate had directed the complainant to examine further witnesses on his behalf and this was challenged by the complainant before this court and the same ended in dismissal. The said matter is still pending consideration before the Magistrate.
4. It is submitted that the complaint preferred by Sri. Joshy Varghese before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, is by concealing the earlier complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Maradu, in C.M.P.No.2/2018 on the same set of facts and cause of action which is still pending consideration.
5. One Mr. Polachan Puthupara had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, based on the very same set of facts and allegation as per Annexure -10 complaint, which was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, on the ground that the issue involved is of civil nature by Annexure A6 order.
6. Yet another complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, in Crl.M.P. No.820/2010 by one Pappachan Varghese predicted on the same set of facts which was referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Consequently a crime was registered. But it was referred by the police on the ground of mistake of facts.
7. The Central Crime Branch Police, Ernakulam, launched a thorough investigation by examining 83 witnesses including the 36 persons who had purchased various properties and concluded the investigation stating that internal rules governing the administration of diocese were duly complied with both by their Financial Committee and Consulters Forum at each stage of transaction and a closure report Annexure A7 was submitted.
8. One Shine Varghese had approached the Central Police Station, Ernakulam, directly by filing a complaint based on the same set of allegations and approached this court seeking a mandamus for registration of crime in which a direction was issued by this court, but it was reversed in appeal based on which investigation was conducted and a closure report was submitted by the police.
9. The dispute pertains to the execution of various sale deeds in respect of properties held by the Syro Malabar Church, a religious congregation allegedly without compliance of the requirements as per the byelaws of the Church causing heavy financial losses to the church and its parishioners. Inter alia, it has been contended that all these sale deeds are the result of criminal conspiracy hatched between the petitioner in collusion with his henchmen and the persons who had purchased the properties. He
