Kerala High Court
Bishop Dr. Thomas Aquinas vs State Of Kerala
Author: B.Sudheendra Kumar
Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2017/19TH ASHADHA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 2911 of 2017 ()
---------------------------
IN CC 936/2016 of I ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,PALAKKAD
CRIME NO. 854/2013 OF WALAYAR POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:
--------------------------------------------
BISHOP DR. THOMAS AQUINAS, S/O.FRANCIS, AGED 64 YEARS,
BISHOP OF COIMBATORE, BISHOP'S HOUSE, BIG BAZAAR STREET,
POST BOX NO. 6, COIMBATORE -641 001, TAMIL NADU
BY ADVS.SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH
SMT.KAMALAKSHY KYLASANATH
SRI.R.MAHESH MENON
SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS
SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.)
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKUKLAM, KOCHI 682 031.
BY ADGP, SRI SURESH BABU THOMAS
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-07-
2017, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.4609/2017.THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 2911 of 2017 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------------------
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE GIST OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH
THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE
IN CC NO. 936/2016 OF THE 1ST ADDL.SESSIONS, COURT,
PALAKKAD
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC.91 CR.P.C. ISSUED BY THE
INVESTIGATING OFFICER ON 27.11.2015
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 19.8.2013
AT THE BISHOP'S HOUSE, COIMBATORE
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8.6.2016 ISSUED TO THE 6TH
ACCUSED UNDER SEC.41(A) OF THE CR.P.C
ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER RECORDED
UNDER SEC. 164 OF THE CR.P.C
ANNEXURE 6 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 3RD ACCUSED RECORDED
UNDER SEC. 164 OF THE CR.P.C
ANNEXURE 6A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 4TH ACCUSED
RECORDED UNDER SEC. 164 OF THE CR.P.C
ANNEXURE 6B TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 5THACCUSED RECORDED
UNDER SEC. 164 OF THE CR.P.C
ANNEXURE 6C TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 6TH ACCUSED
RECORDED UNDER SEC. 164 OF THE CR.P.C
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
-----------------------
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C. No.2911 and 4609 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 10th day of July 2017
O R D E R
The petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 6 in S.C. No. 4 of 2017 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad. The offences alleged are the offences under Sections 306, 376, 201 and 202 read with Section 149 I.P.C.
2. The prosecution allegation is that the first accused in the case namely Fr.Arogyaraj, committed rape on deceased Fatima Sophia on so many times from 2012. Since the said Fatima Sophia was longing to live with Fr.Arogyaraj, he wanted to avoid her and for that purpose, Crl.M.C.2911 & 4609/2017 -: 2 :- he abetted the suicide of the victim. Accordingly, Fatima Sophia committed suicide by hanging on 23.7.2013 from a ceiling fan inside the room of the first accused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since there is no allegation that the petitioners were involved in any of the said offences except that the petitioners did not disclose the statement given by the first accused to the committee of the petitioners, which enquired into the immoral life of the first accused, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be sustained.
4. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Gopalakrishna Kurup and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution, Sri.Suresh Babu.
5. It has been fairly conceded by the Additional Crl.M.C.2911 & 4609/2017 -: 3 :- Director General of Prosecution that there is no allegation that the petitioners committed the offences under sections 306, 201 and 376 read with 149 I.P.C. The only allegation against the petitioners is that when the petitioners received the information with regard to the immoral life of the first accused in this case, a committee was constituted to enquire into the mater as per the provisions of Canon Law, wherein the petitioners were the members. The first accused had given statement to the committee to the effect that he had physical relationship once with the girl involved in this case. The said aspect was recorded in the minutes of the committee as is evident from Annexure-3. The petitioners produced the said minutes before the Investigating Officer in response to the notice received under Section 91 Cr.P.C. There is absolutely no allegation Crl.M.C.2911 & 4609/2017 -: 4 :- that the petitioners had in any way assisted or abetted the first accused in committing the offence under Sections 306 and 376 I.P.C. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that there is absolutely no allegation or material to the effect that the petitioners caused disappearance of the evidence of commission of the offence or gave false information to screen the first accused. The only offence alleged against the petitioners is the offence under Section 202 I.P.C., which is a separate and distinct non-cognizable offence triable by a Magistrate. Therefore, the investigation of the said offence can be conducted by the police only after getting permission from the Magistrate as provided under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. In this case, the said offence was investigated by the police without obtaining the permission from the Magistrate as Crl.M.C.2911 & 4609/2017 -: 5 :- provided under section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Since the offence alleged against the petitioners is a separate and distinct offence, it should have been separately investigated after registering the crime. In view of the above reasons, it will not be just and proper to direct the petitioners to face the trial before a Sessions Court. For the said reason, I am inclined to quash the final report and further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No.4 of 2017 on the files of the court below, in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to meet the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE dl/10.7..2017