Madras High Court
Rev.S.Immanuel Devakadatcham vs Prof.D.S.Luther on 4 October, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 898, (2019) 2 MADLW(CRI) 689 (2019) 4 MAD LJ(CRI) 480, (2019) 4 MAD LJ(CRI) 480
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 21.06.2019
Pronounced on : 04.10.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013
Rev.S.Immanuel Devakadatcham,
Presbyter in Charge,
St.George's Cathedral,
No.224, Cathedral Road,
Chennai-600 086. ... Petitioner/2nd accused
Vs.
1.Prof.D.S.Luther,
Secretary – Trustee,
St.George's Cathedral Trust,
No.224, Cathedral Road,
Gopalapuram,
Chennai-600 086. ... Respondent/Complainant
2.Rt.Rev.V.Devasahayam,
S/o.Mr.Vedanayagam, Bishop House,
No.226, Cathedral Road, Gopalapuram,
Chennai-600 086. ... Respondent/1st accused
[1st petitioner is transposed as 2nd
respondent as per order in
Crl.M.P.No.1135 of 2019 in
Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2018 dated
25.01.2019.]
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
1/31
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013
C.C.No.6040 of 2013 pending before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Saidapet, Chennai-15 with respect to the accused Nos.1 & 2.
For Petitioner/A2 : Mr.Raghavachari for
Mr.M.Kempraj
For 2nd Respondent/A1 : M/s.Rt.Rev.V.Devasahayam
Party in Person
For 1st Respondent/
Complainant : Mr.D.Moses Jeyekaran
*****
ORDER
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. 2/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013
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 Secreatary-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. Druing the year 2000 the patta 3/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 of the trust properties were changed by fabricating documents in the name of Madras Diocesan Trust Association, which is under the control of the 2 nd 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 4/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 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 against the trustees. The 2nd respondent has sent a reply dated 31.08.2013 stating that the 2nd respondent has suspended the 1st respondent/complainant from the primary membership of the church, he was ignoring the said notice from the suspended member. On receipt of the reply, a rejoinder dated 23.09.2013 was sent.
7.Further the petitioner and the 2nd respondent made false complaint to the Commissioner of Police on 29.08.2013 as though the trustees had produced false documents to change the name of the owner of the St.George's Cathedral properties from Madras Diocesan Trust Association (MDTA) to St.George's Cathedral Trust. This was widely published in the print media by distributing copies of the said defamatory, slanderous false complaint to the press and had got published in two leading dailies, the 5/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 Deccan Chronicle and Dina Malar dated 30.08.2013. Besides this sensational news was also telecasted in Sun News Tamil Television Channel on 29.08.2013 and The Tamil Daily “Dina Thanthi” had published a picture of the two accused proceeding to the office of the Commissioner of Police. Thus having publicized defamatory and slanderous allegations, the above case has been filed.
8.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations in the complaint does not constitute offence under Section 499 of IPC and in the absence of any imputation, the complaint is not maintainable. On 02.12.2012 from the pulpit a holy platform inside the St.George's Cathedral Church, during preaching the trustees were referred as “Devils” which is defamatory is not proper. On the contrary it was contended that quoting from the religious book are read in churches, which is part of preaching, in the religious book “A Guide to the Sacraments” written by John Macquarrie in chapter-orders/Ordination-III. The following version are found:-
“Follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed his Father, and the presbytery as the apostles. Reverence the deacons, as the command of God. Let no one do 6/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 anything appertaining to the Church without the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured of God; he who does nothing without the knowledge of the bishop is serving the devil' (Smyn.8-9). In another letter, he writes: As the Lord was united to the Father and did nothing without him, so your are to do nothing without the bishop and presbyters.”
9.The Holy platform used for preaching is generally for all the members of the church and not specifically pointed out to any specific person as alleged in the complaint and the said words which were used for preaching is quote from a religious book. Further the 2nd respondent/accused lodging a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, is no imputation. The petitioners had not called for any press meet and he is not the reason for publication. The letter to Commissioner of Police is a request to provide police protection for Ingat Festival arranged on 01.09.2013, 2nd respondent neither called any press meet nor caused publication. Hence the ingredients of the complaint would come under exception six of 499 IPC.
10.Further it is admitted that trustees are nominated by the Bishop namely the 2nd respondent/accused. It is admitted that the 1st respondent 7/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 did not attend the sermons of the church on 02.12.2012. The letter dated 03.12.2012 sent by the respondent/complainant to the 1st accused/2nd respondent is extracted here under:-
“Dear and respected Bishop, The Trustees of St.George's Cathedral Trust feel that as part of your sermon from the pulpit yesterday on the confirmation Day, your reference to extraneous administrative matters and relationship between the Diocese and the Trust, was most inappropriate to say from the pulpit, besides being an one-sided version of all that has happened.
For the record, we have to state certain facts. Your reference that he appointment of the junior most trustee as the Senior Trustee was most unfortunate as you have stated this without going into the background or reasons. At the time of installation of Mr.M.M.Rajendran, you publicly announced before the entire congregation that were happy that the Trustees had agreed to make Mr.Rajendran as the Senior Trustee. This was followed by expression of similar sentiments by the then Presbyter. In some of your letters also you have referred to Mr.Rajendran as the Senior Trustee. However, some of the decisions that have been taken by the Trust subsequently in the interest of the Trust, to 8/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 protect the property of the Trust, on behalf of the congregation, were not to your liking. It was a year later that you started questioning the appointment of the Senior Trustee and you even wrote to Mrs.Felix to be the Senior Trustee. You had also asked the Pastor to change the order of names of Trustees in the Cathedral Chimes to show Mr.Rajendran as the juniormost trustee. The Pastor, as your obedient subordinate, carried this out much to the chagrin of the Editor of the Chimes who chose to resign than carry out such a vindictive unfair decision. Your attempt to divide the Trustees by asking Mrs.Felix to be the Senior Trustee also failed and the sound reasons given by Mrs.Felix as to why Mr.Rajemdran should continue as the Senior Trustee did not convince you, but you just reiterated your stand, notwithstanding that the designation of the Senior Trustee was not a process of appointment of Trustee and hence not within the purview of the Bishop. We are not saying that you should have mentioned all this from the pulpit, but suffice it to say that an one sided version should not have been given from the pulpit it would have been best not to talk about it.
A reference also was made by you to the Trustees going to the DRO on a patta matter. This was necessitated by the fact that after you became the Bishop in 1999, the MDTA under your control had managed to obtain a patta 9/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 for the land belonging to the Trust in the name of MDTA on 14 February 2000. If this was due to a genuine mistake because your were new to the responsibility of the Bishop, as you hinted in one of our meetings, the proper thing for you to have done is to have informed the Tahsildar and DRO that MDTA had no objection to the Patta being given back and restore status quo and prior to 14.02.2000. Instead, the MDTA chose to contest our application without producing any document to support the claim for the patta.
Yet another reference was to the Trust filing a case in the High Court. Why did the Trust have to file the case? This was because you made an appointment of the Presbyter as a “Clergy Trustee”, to preside over the Trust meetings, which was illegal and there was no provision for such an appointment. This was pointed out, how this were initiative of the rules. Our protest was ignored by you and the Pastor announced in the Cathedral Chimes about this appointment. As the Pastor appeared to be determined to implement this order, we were forced to go to the High Court, which is the final arbiter in our Trust matters, to avoid any untoward incident. We do not want to say more about this case, as the matter is sub judice and anything which the parties say should not amount to contempt of Court. Suffice it to say here that you should have avoided a reference to 10/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 the filing of the case as a reference without explaining the background is not fair to us.
It was not in good taste to refer to our actions, as actions of the devil. The Trust is also serving the Lord Jesus Christ in the best manner possible within the area given to it and never interferes in religious and ecclesiastical matters in which we concede your supremacy in the Diocese.”
11.Following the above letter, legal notice dated 22.08.2013 is extracted here under:-
“Sir, Under instructions from my client, Prof.D.S.Luther, Secretary Trustee, St.George's Cathedral Trust, No.224, Cathedral Road, Chennai-600 086, I am issuing the following notice to you:
My client states that he had sent his letter dated 03.12.2012 (copy enclosed) protesting against your defamatory remarks against the Trustees of St.George's Cathedral Trust viz. Mr.M.M.Rajendran, Senior Trustee, prof.D.S.Luther, Secreatry Trustee, Mrs.M.E.Felix, Trustee and Mrs.Lalitha Sukumar, Trustee, made form the pulpit of St.George's Catherdral Church on Sunday the 2nd day of December 2012 in the confirmation Service which conduct is unworthy of the high spiritual office that your 11/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 are holding.
My client states that he has waited patiently expecting you will express your regret for such remarks made from the pulpit. My client states that however there has been no response from your so far to his letter and so my client hereby requests you to make suitable amends to the said Trustees to undo the damage that you have publicly done before the entire congregation by regretting before the congregation for making such defamatory and uncharitable remarks against then falling which my client would be constrained to seek suitable remedy/redressal for such defamatory remarks made before the Cathedral congregation before the appropriate forum.”
12.From the above two letters, there is no mention of any imputation words or the 1st respondent/complainant being defamed in estimation in the eye of others. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint to the Commissioner of Police and there was no press meet held and no press note released. Further submitted that on the delivery of sermon there is nothing but an unintended speech prepared and presented. The sermons are sacred more than 700 persons attended the prayer. None other than the respondent/complainant had made such allegation and complained. Further the complaint to the Commissioner of 12/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 Police does not constitute defamation. It is also submitted that none of the reporter, editors, publishers and the telecaster have been made as parties to the suit. Hence he prayed for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner.
13.In order to substantiate the arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following Judgments:-
“1. W.Hay and others Versus Aswini Kumar Samanta reported in 1958 AIR (Calcutta) 269 : 1958 (1) ILR (Calcutta) 527. It is held that there is no doubt a vague and general statement that the defamatory statement was circulated but it is not at all clear therefrom as to what particular statement was meant to be included in the expression.
2. M.Neelakantadas Versus M.Gopinathan reported in 1995 (1) MWN Cri 79. It is held that the Defamatory statement made in the complaint to a public officer are absolutely privileged and that cannot be made as basis for allegations and the doctrine of absolute privilege bars any enquiry into motive of the person who made the complaint.13/31
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013
3. M.J.Zakharia Sait Versus T.M.Mohammed and others reported in 1990 (3) SCC 396. It is held that in a libel action, the extrinsic facts constitute a cause of action, whereas in the election action they constitute the corrupt practise. Time and again, the Courts have uttered a warning against acceptance of a non-
corroborated oral testimony in an election matter because it is not only difficult to get non-partisan witness but it is also easy to procure partisan witnesses in such disputes.
4. Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao Versus E.V.Alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil and others reported in 1994 (1) SCC 682. It is held that balance between freedom of speech of the individual and public interest to be maintained.
5. Thangavel Udayar Versus R.K.Raju Mudaliar reported in 1996 (11) CTC 304. It is held that no evidence on the side of plaintiff that the defendant gave any information for publication in the newspaper – Defendant cannot be held for effecting publication.”
14.In addition to the submissions, the 2nd respondent/1st accused further submitted that the 1st respondent/complainant had amended the 14/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 rules taking away administration of the St.George's Cathedral Trust and registered the same as Document No.300 of 2012 on 12.10.2012. From the deed it is seen that the appointment of trustees was initially with the United company of Merchants of England and thereafter with the Governor General of the Presidency of Madras and after India became a Sovereign Republic, the power of appointing trustees to the St.George's Cathedral Trust, came to be exercised by the Bishop of Madras of the Church of South India. The board of trustees has amended the rules on 06.10.2012 in which certain amendments were made making the 2nd respondent as a figure head.
15.The 2nd respondent/accused, devastation without any voting right and further taking away the management and administration rights so far carried out by the Bishop of Madras was a motivated act of the trustees. Thus there have been allegations and counter allegations against both the parties and in infringement of convention and customary rights, privileges of the bishop in the affairs of St.George's Cathedral Trust. The Madras Diocesan Trust Association was incorporated in 1929. As per the constitution of Church of South India Trust Association (CSITA) the legal ownership of all the church and church properties and all the institutions in the Diocese of Madras vests with the CSITA and it holds the properties for 15/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 the benefit of the Diocese of Madras. As per the constitution of the Church of South India, the office of a bishop is essentially a teaching office and he should do all that is in his power for the edification of the ministers and congregations over whom he has oversight by instructing them concerning the truths of the Christian faith.
16.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the trustees has filed cases against the bishop and the presbyters in C.S.No.731 of 2012, multiples of miscellaneous applications, petitions were filed by both the parties. Writ petitions also filed. There were complaint and counter complaint against each other. There have been no cordiality between them.
17.He further submitted that this complaint is a motivated one, since the 2nd respondent/complainant attempted to marginalize, the 2nd petitioner Bishop of Madras, which was resisted by the 2nd respondent/accused, which was not to the liking of the elite group and trustees. Hence, a motivated false complaint has been filed against the petitioner.
16/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013
18.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/A1 relied upon the following citations:-
“1) State of Maharashtra Versus Dr.R.B.Chowdhary and two others reported in 1968 AIR 110, 1967 SCR (3) 708. It is held that whether the members of the Editorial Board other than the editor can be prosecuted for the defamatory article.
2) Balraj Khanna & Ors Versus Moti Ram reported in 1971 AIR 1389, 1971 SCR 447. It is held that the object of having, it possible, the actual words or the statements before the court is to enable it to consider whether these words or the statements are defamatory in nature. That purpose or object will be several if the complainant is able to reproduce in his complaint or evidence in a substantial measure the words of imputation alleged to have been uttered.
3) Manmohan Kalia Versus Yash and others reported in 1984 (3) SCC 499. It is held that where the doctrine of innuendo is applied, it must be clearly proved that the defamatory allegation was made in respect of a person though not named yet so fully described that the allegation would refer to that person and that person 17/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 alone. Innuendo cannot be proved merely by inferential evidence which may be capable of two possibilities.
4) P.M.Kathiresan Versus Shanmugham reported in 1995 Crlj 2508. It is held that it is not defamation to prefer a good faith and accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject of accusation.
5) Homen Borgohain and Ors. Versus The Brahmaputra Valley Regional reported in 1995 CriLJ 2357. It is held that mere feeling of involvement cannot constitute a case of defamation under Section 500 of IPC.
6) J.Jayalalitha Versus Arcot N.Veerasamy. It is held that due to imputation the prestige, image and reputation of the complainant has been lowered in the estimation of the public.
7) Jacob Mathew Versus Gangadharan Nair reported in 2001 (2) ALT Cri 46. It is held that nowhere in the news item, there is mention about the complainant/first respondent.
8) Sanatan Sanstha Versus State of Goa reported in CDJ 2007 BHC 295. It is held that intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation 18/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 will harm the reputation of such person.
9) V.S.Achuthanandan Versus G.Kamalamma and Another reported in CDJ 2008 Ker HC 290. It is held that alleged defamation text has to be read as a whole and not to isolate certain lines or passage from the same to say that it is defamatory.
10) State of Haryana and others Versus Bhajan Lal Ors reported in 1992 AIR 604, 1990 SCR Supl. (3)
259.”
19.The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant would submit that the imputation caused by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are per se defamatory and sufficient materials are produced in this case. The trial Court after perusing the materials produced, recorded sworn statement, examined the case and taken cognizance of the complaint. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent has to approach the trial Court on the issues involved. There is dispute of facts which have to be decided only during the trial. The admitted dispute between the complainant and accused is the motive for the accused to make such defamatory statement in pulpit which is a place for sermons to be conducted with holiness and not to utter derogative statements. The letter has been sent to the 2 nd 19/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 respondent on 03.12.2012 and legal notice on 22.08.2013, for which the 2nd respondent failed to send any reply. On the other hand to escape from his follies, he has sent a communication that the 1st respondent/complainant and the other trustees have been suspended from the primary membership and hence the notice has been ignored.
20.He would further submit that the complaint is motivated and complainant acting at the behest of Senior Trustee M.M.Rajendran is not true. The said Senior trustee is not a witness in the complaint. Further he had filed written arguments in which he has extracted Section 499 of IPC and also extracted principles not to quash under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that there is no immunity or special privilege under common law or religious law be it done within the four walls of the church or outside by a bishop or presbyter. Hence, the defamatory caused by the bishop can be prosecuted in the Court of law. The property tax are being paid by the trustees and they followed trust byelaws and rules in governing the trust. The 2nd respondent/accused attempted to interfere with the trust affair and in the year 2000 he surreptitiously transferred the patta which stood in the name of trust, without notice to the existing trustees to the name of MDTA and both MDTA and CSITA are directly under the control 20/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 of 2nd respondent/accused. Hence, he wanted to take over the trust property which was resisted and this act was exposed to the members of the church. It was admitted by the 1st respondent/complainant that they have filed a Civil Suit in C.S.No.731 of 2012 before this Court. This Court by order dated 02.07.2013 granted an interim injunction. Against which O.S.A.No.249 and 250 of 2013 was filed in which Status Quo was granted by Division Bench of this Court on 05.07.2013.
21.Earlier to it, the 2nd respondent/A1, on 01.07.2013 attempted to trespass and take away the records of the trust, against which a criminal complaint was filed by the trustees and the same is pending. The 2nd respondent/accused has misused the church pulpit delivered the sermon and on the pretext of sermon he abused and called the trustees as “Devils and their Supporters as Devil's followers”, thereby misused the holy platform to wreck vengeance on the trustees for the above reasons.
22.The contents of the complaint are perse defamatory and the newspaper clipping would show that the accused had made a false representation to the Commissioner of Police. There are communications on the issue from the 1st respondent/complainant calling upon the 21/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 petitioner and the 2nd respondent to regret and apologize but he had not chosen to correct himself. On the contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ love your enemy. The 2nd respondent/accused had become more and more aggressive while delivering sermon taking shelter that it is a quote from a religious book. The defence of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent that they in good faith submitted to the judgment of the Public is a plea to be decided by letting in evidence during the trial. The trustees having taken effective steps and cancelled the patta and also stalled the appointment of the petitioner as Clergy Trustee, made the 2nd respondent/accused to make such defamatory statement in the pulpit of church. Further the petitioner and the 2nd respondent has given a false complaint to the Commissioner of Police knowing well that the patta has been canceled and restored to the trust and also made a false complaint to the public authority. Added to it, the 2nd respondent has suspended the trustees of the trust from the primary membership of the church. The points raised by the petitioner cannot be decided in this quash petition, which has to be tested in the trial. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the case.
23.Further the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant filed typed set of papers to show that the trust was holding the property of 22/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 the St.George's Cathedral compound, which leased out two acres of land to American council fler. Containing the order of the District Revenue Officer dated 27.12.2012, cancelling and restoration of patta in the name of St.George's Cathedral Trust and the letter of M.M.Rajendran, Senior trustee of the trust addressed to the 2nd respondent/accused dated 05.08.2013.
24.On considering the rival submissions and on perusal of materials, it is seen that there are running feud between the petitioner, the 2nd respondent with the 1st respondent. The petitioner is a presbyter and the 2nd respondent is a Bishop of St.George Cathedral church and the 1st respondent/complainant is one of the trustees, Secretary of the St.George's Cathedral Trust. It is a dispute with regard to the ownership and management of the properties. It is admitted that the Bishop is the authority to nominate the trustees to the trust and it is also an admitted fact that the 1st respondent/complainant did not attend the sermon. On perusal of the letter dated 03.12.2012 and the legal notice dated 22.03.2013 it is found that there is no mention of imputation statement. The imputation which according to the 1st respondent/complainant in the complaint is extracted:-
“Mdhy; mwf;fl;lis eph;thfpfs; mditUk;.
rh;r; eltof;iffSf;F vjpuhf bray;gl;Lte;jdh;/
23/31
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013
,jpy; uhn$e;jpudpd; fl;lisg;go kw;w eph;thfpfs;
midtUk;. rh;r; kw;Wk; lnahrp!; tpUg;gj;jpw;F
khwhf. mwf;fl;lis brhj;Jfis j';fs;
fl;Lg;ghl;ow;Fs; bfhz;Lte;jJld; gf;jh;fs; rh;r;
eph;thfp Mfpnahhpd; gzpfSf;Fk; ,ila{W bra;jdh;/ ,ijaLj;J fle;j $%d; khjk;. uhn$e;jpud;
cs;spl;l ehd;F ngUk;. rh;r;rpd; Kjy; epiy
cWg;gpdh; gjtpapy; ,Ue;J. xuhz;L fhyj;jpw;F
r!;bgz;l; bra;ag;gl;ldh;/
mjd;gpd; fle;j $%d; khj ,Wjpapy;
mwf;fl;lisf;F g[jpa eph;thfpfs; njh;t[ bra;ag;gl;L epakpf;fg;g;lldh;/ Mdhy; giHa eph;thfpfshd uhn$e;jpud; kw;Wk; Y}jh; Mfpnahh; rl;l tpnuhjkhf. rh;r; tshfj;jpw;Fs; EiHe;J. gzpahsh;fis J}z;o tpLfpd;wdh;/ rh;r; rhh;gpy; brg;lk;gh;. 1k; njjpapy;
elj;jg;gLk; tpHhita[k; elj;jf;TlhJ vd;W kpul;ly;
tpLj;J cs;sdh;/ vdnt. uhn$e;jpud;. Y}jh;
cs;spl;nlhh; kPJ. tHf;F gjpe;J. eltof;if vLf;f ntz;Lk;/”
25.It is an admitted fact that the 2nd respondent/accused has not called any press meet nor released any press note for publication. They approached the Commissioner of Police and gave complaint seeking for police protection. It is also admitted that there are cases and counter cases between the parties, which were pending before various Courts and authorities.
24/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013
26.In this background it is to be seen that whether at all the sermon on 02.12.2012 amounted to any imputation against the 1st respondent/complainant. Whether the fact of police complaint published in Tamil Daily Dina Malar, Deccan Chronicle, publication of photo in “Dina Thanthi” and telecast in Sun News Tamil Television Channel on 29.08.2013 would amount to slander and libel. Libel is written or visual defamation and Slander is oral or aural defamation.
27.The news published in “Dina Malar” dated 30.08.2013 has been extracted in the complaint, the paper publication of “Dina Malar”, “Deccan Chronicle”, picture published in “Dina Thanthi” have been annexed as Document Nos.6, 7 and 8 in the complaint. On perusal of the same, it is seen that there is no imputation found against the 1st respondent/complainant. Further, no press release or press note had been circulated by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. With regard to publication, from the complaint as well as documents annexed in the complaint, it is seen that there are no materials to show that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have given any information for publication in the newspaper and to visual media. The 1st respondent/complainant failed to 25/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 establish the ingredients in order to sustain in the case for malicious criminal prosecution.
28.Further, this Court finds that there are no specific pleadings nor necessary ingredients are found in the complaint and in the documents. In other words, the averments in the complaint are general in nature. As regards the sermon held on 02.12.2012, which according to the 1st respondent/complainant is motivated imputation made by the 2nd respondent/A1 against trustees. The details of the actual words or the statements are not available in the letter dated 03.12.2012, legal notice dated 22.08.2013 as well as in the complaint, so as to consider whether the words or statements are defamatory in nature.
29.It is an admitted fact that neither the 1st respondent/complainant nor any of the trustees were not present during sermon dated 02.12.2012. The 1st respondent/complainant is the Secretary of St.George Cathedral Trust, a running feud between the St.George Cathedral Trust and the Bishop and the Presbyter of the St.George Cathedral Church as the trustees amended the trust deed by registered Document No.300/2012, dated 12.10.2012 had, virtually devised and taken away all the powers and 26/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 privileges of Bishop, which was in vogue from year 1950. The Bishop had been made as a figurative head and the trustees to be for life time. Further, the Bishop recommendation in nominating trustees was subjected to consideration and approval of the trustees. The Bishop may be invited to the board meetings of the trustees as a special invitee without any voting right, which was against the letter and spirit of the trust deed. The bishop were administering and managing the church as well as the trust till then. The Bishop had nominated the presbyter as Clergy Trustee to the trust, against which Civil Suit was filed during November 2012.
30.In this background, the 1st respondent/complainant had attributed that the sermon conducted on 02.12.2012 by the Bishop and the reference to “he who honours Bishop has been honoured of God, he who does anything without the knowledge of the Bishop is serving the devil” a quote from religious book, a guide to the Sacraments by John Macquarrie. The 1st respondent/complainant and other trustees identifiable to this reference are ill-founded farfetched. Further, nowhere it is stated that due to the imputation, prestige, image and reputation of the 1st respondent/complainant have been lowered in the estimation of others. The text has to be read as a whole and not in isolation, taking out of 27/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 context and to say that it is defamatory is not permissible in law. Further, in the complaint it is seen that it is a vague and general statement and there is nothing to infer that it is a defamatory one.
31.Thus in the conjoint reading of Section 499 of IPC with the above explanation would make it clear that in the complaint there shall be averment to the effect that such an imputation has lowered the 1st respondent/complainant's reputation in the estimation of others. As indicated earlier, this important ingredient is absent in the complaint. The word 'devil' used here relates to imputation on a man's character, made and expressed to others, so as to lower him in their estimation and anything which lowers him merely in his own estimation, certainly does not constitute defamation.
32.Therefore in the absence of any averment in the complaint with reference to the fact of the reputation of the petitioner having been lowered down in the estimation of others, I feel that sufficient grounds are not made out to proceed further by taking cognizance of the complaint. Further, the complaint would fall under the exemptions 7, 9 and 10. 28/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013
33.Complaint to the police are absolutely privileged and cannot be made a basis for allegations and the doctrine of absolute privilege bars enquiry into the motive of the person, who made the complaint. Further there is no evidence to show that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent gave any information for publication in the newspaper, publication of the news in the newspaper and hence they cannot be held to be person effecting publication. Further in the letter dated 03.12.2012, it is seen that the trustees claiming to act on behalf of congregation had initiated proceedings against the action of the Bishop in the name of trust. 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.
34.Innuendo cannot be proved merely by inferential evidence. Mere feeling of involvement cannot constitute a case of defamation. The complaint is a motivated one. The averments in the complaint are not 29/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 sufficient to constitute essential ingredients of Section 499 of IPC. The allegations made in the complaint even if taken face value accepted, in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence.
35.For the reasons given above, the continuation of the proceedings as against the petitioner/A2 and the 2nd respondent/A1 will result in abuse of process of law. Hence, the proceedings in C.C.No.6040 of 2013 on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is Allowed.
04.10.2019 Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vv2 To The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, 30/31 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2 PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN Crl.O.P.No.33348 of 2013 04.10.2019 31/31 http://www.judis.nic.in