Supreme Court Dismisses Criminal Appeals Against Cardinal in Church Property Case

Date of the Judgment: 17 March 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 238

Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J. and Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Can a religious head be prosecuted for allegedly selling church properties fraudulently? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, examining the maintainability of criminal complaints against Cardinal Mar George Alencherry. The court dismissed appeals challenging the summons issued against the Cardinal, accused of conspiring to sell church properties illegally. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which criminal proceedings can be initiated in such cases. The bench comprised Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi, with Justice Bela M. Trivedi authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The Syro Malabar Church, headed by the appellant Cardinal Mar George Alencherry, faced allegations of property alienation. Mr. Joshy Varghese, a church member, filed a complaint on 16th July, 2018, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kakkanad, accusing the Cardinal and others of criminal conspiracy and fraudulent property disposal. The complainant alleged that the Cardinal, along with Rev Fr. Joshy Puthuva and Saju Varghese, conspired to sell properties of the Archdiocese between 2012 and 2017. The Archdiocese, which manages numerous institutions and churches, owns significant assets. The complaint detailed specific instances of property alienation by the accused.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially dismissed some charges but issued summons for offences under Sections 120-B, 406, and 423 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Sessions Court upheld this decision, leading to the Cardinal and another accused filing petitions in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The High Court dismissed these petitions and gave directions to the State Government. The Supreme Court heard appeals against the High Court’s order.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 120B, IPC: Deals with criminal conspiracy.
• Section 406, IPC: Addresses the punishment for criminal breach of trust.
• Section 423, IPC: Concerns dishonest or fraudulent execution of a deed of transfer containing a false statement of consideration.
• Section 34, IPC: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

The Court also considered the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), particularly Sections 190, 200, 202, 203, and 482, which relate to the cognizance of offences, examination of complainants, inquiry, dismissal of complaints, and the inherent powers of the High Court, respectively.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the complaint was not maintainable as a similar complaint on the same facts had already been dismissed by the Court of Maradu.
• It was contended that the second complaint on the same set of facts against the same accused was not maintainable.
• The appellant also argued that similar complaints filed by other complainants making similar allegations were not found to be of any substance.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the first complaint was dismissed without any cognizance being taken, and the current complaints contained specific details about the sale of properties within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court at Kakkanad.
• The respondent stated that the first complaint was filed before the Court of Maradu as the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of Maradu Police Station, whereas the other complaints were filed before the Court of JMFC, Kakkanad within whose jurisdiction the properties were situated.
• The respondent contended that the Trial Court had taken cognizance of the offences before the dismissal of the first complaint.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the present complaints were maintainable after the dismissal of an earlier complaint on the same set of facts.
2. Whether the Trial Court had rightly taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant.
3. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petitions filed by the appellant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
4. Whether the High Court was correct in making observations regarding the powers and authority of the Archbishop of Archdiocese with regard to the temporal and spiritual affairs of the Churches.
5. Whether the High Court was justified in passing subsequent orders after dismissing the petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer Vs. Videocon International Ltd. and Others [ (2008) 2 SCC 492]* to explain the meaning of “cognizance” and the scope of inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.
• The Court used Ramdev Food Products Private Vs. State of Gujarat [ (2015) 6 SCC 439]* to distinguish between Sections 156(3) and 202(1) of Cr.P.C.
• The Court relied on Pramatha Nath Talukdar Vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar [AIR 1962 SC 876]* and subsequent cases like Jatinder Singh and others Vs. Ranjit Kaur [(2001) 2 SCC 570]*, Ranvir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Another [(2009) 9 SCC 642]*, Poonam Chand Jain and Another Vs. Fazru [(2010) 2 SCC 631]*, and Samta Naidu and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another [(2020) 5 SCC 378]* to reiterate the principle that a second complaint is maintainable in exceptional circumstances.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the Trial Court had taken cognizance of the offences before the dismissal of the previous complaint. The Court emphasized that cognizance is taken of an offence and not of the offender. The Court also noted that the previous complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution, without any adverse order being passed on merits. The Court found that the Trial Court had meticulously examined the allegations and evidence before issuing summons to the appellant and others. The court also held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions to the State Government and impleading the Central Government and CBI as parties after dismissing the petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that a second complaint was not maintainable, citing that the previous order was passed on an incomplete record and that the current complaints contained specific details. The Court also noted that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by passing subsequent orders after the dismissal of the petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

The Court observed, “It cannot be gainsaid that the cognizance is taken of an offence and not of the offender.” The Court further stated, “An order of dismissal under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances.” The Court also noted, “The High Court in its overzealous approach had travelled not only beyond the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C and of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but had crossed all the boundaries of judicial activism and judicial restraint.”

Key Takeaways

• A second criminal complaint on the same facts is maintainable if the previous complaint was dismissed without cognizance or if there are exceptional circumstances like new evidence or incomplete records.
• Courts must exercise judicial restraint and not overstep their jurisdiction.
• Cognizance is taken of an offense, not the offender.
• High Courts should not pass orders that have wide ramifications without hearing all affected parties.
• The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not meant to be used as a substitute for other remedies.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to decide the complaints in accordance with the law, without being influenced by the observations made by the High Court in paragraphs 17 to 39 of the impugned order. The Court also directed that it would be open to the petitioners (Eparchy of Bathery and Catholic Diocese of Thamarassery) to take recourse to the remedies as may be legally permissible, in case the said observations cause any complications in the transactions already concluded by the Churches to whom the said petitioners represent.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principle that a second complaint is maintainable in exceptional circumstances, as established in Pramatha Nath Talukdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar. It also emphasizes the importance of judicial restraint and the limits of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The ratio decidendi of the case is that a second complaint is maintainable if the previous complaint was dismissed without cognizance, and the current complaint provides specific details, and that the courts should exercise judicial restraint.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeals filed by Cardinal Mar George Alencherry, upholding the Trial Court’s decision to issue summons against him for alleged fraudulent property disposal. The Court clarified that a second complaint is maintainable under certain circumstances and emphasized the need for judicial restraint. The Court also quashed the subsequent orders passed by the High Court after dismissing the petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Category:

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Criminal Procedure Code

Child Category: Indian Penal Code

Child Category: Section 120B, Indian Penal Code

Child Category: Section 406, Indian Penal Code

Child Category: Section 423, Indian Penal Code

Child Category: Section 34, Indian Penal Code

Child Category: Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code

Child Category: Cognizance of Offence

Child Category: Maintainability of Second Complaint

FAQ

Q: Can a second criminal complaint be filed if a previous one on the same facts was dismissed?

A: Yes, a second criminal complaint is maintainable if the previous one was dismissed without the court taking cognizance or if there are exceptional circumstances such as new evidence or an incomplete record in the previous case.

Q: What does “taking cognizance” of an offense mean?

A: “Taking cognizance” means that the court has become aware of and has taken judicial notice of an alleged offense with a view to initiating proceedings against the accused.

Q: What is the significance of the Supreme Court’s emphasis on judicial restraint?

A: The Supreme Court emphasized that courts should exercise judicial restraint and not overstep their jurisdiction. This ensures that the judiciary does not interfere with the functions of other branches of the government and that court decisions are based on established legal principles.

Q: What are the implications of this judgment for religious institutions?

A: This judgment clarifies that religious heads can be prosecuted for criminal offenses, and that the courts will not hesitate to take cognizance of such offenses if the complaints are supported by evidence. It also highlights the need for religious institutions to ensure transparency and accountability in the management of their properties.

Q: What should I do if I believe that a religious institution is mismanaging its properties?

A: If you believe that a religious institution is mismanaging its properties, you can file a complaint with the appropriate court. However, it’s important to ensure that the complaint is based on specific facts and evidence, and not merely on general allegations.