Madras High Court
P.Ramaiah vs The Commissioner Of Police on 6 January, 2016
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.01.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22366 of 2015
P.Ramaiah ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Commissioner Office,
Trichy-1.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Palakarai Police Station,
Trichy.
3. E.D.Charles ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to
direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to give Police Protection to the
petitioner, Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop TELC and office bearers of TELC on
28.11.2015 and two months thereafter at Tranquebar House, Trichy-1 to avoid
untoward incidents.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.Radhakrishnan
^For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani
Govt. Advocate
For R3 : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan
For Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj
:ORDER
This petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to give Police Protection to the petitioner, Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin and office bearers of TELC on 28.11.2015 and two months thereafter at Tranquebar House, Trichy-1 to avoid untoward incidents.
2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is as follows:
i) The petitioner has submitted that he is an Advocate and appointed as Legal Adviser of Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (in short ?TELC?) by Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop TELC. It is submitted that though Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop TELC has been elected legally, Mr.E.D.Charles causes hindrance to the smooth administration in respect of Churches, Schools, Colleges and other related offices all over Tamil Nadu and as per the bylaw, Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop TELC is the competent authority to run and govern TELC.
ii) The petitioner has further submitted that the 3rd respondent, by calling himself as a self styled Secretary, is trying to grab the lands of TELC by way of parallel functioning against the present lawfully elected Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop TELC. The 3rd respondent had already stolen away the land documents of TELC and fraudulently sold the properties in the name of Secretary of TELC and as on date, there are nine FIRs pending against him for having disposed of the lands of TELC to the tune of Rs.250 lakhs.
iii) It is the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner made a complaint against the 3rd respondent on 20.08.2015 before the 2nd respondent and no action has been taken thereon. Instead, the 2nd respondent, at the instigation of the 3rd respondent, started foisting false cases against TELC Church and Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop TELC and in this regard, the petitioner filed a complaint seeking disciplinary action against the 2nd respondent before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.20440 of 2015, which is pending till now.
iv) It is the further submission of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent, with an intention to take over the Central Office, TELC has been trying to create bad reputation to the TELC Church in the General Body meeting scheduled to be conducted on 28.11.2015 and if it is permitted to convene the meeting at Tranquebar House, Trichy, there will be a clash with the office bearers of TELC, which forced the petitioner to represent to the Home Secretary as also other Higher Authorities for suitable action. Since there was no response, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court, seeking the relief stated supra.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter, by inter alia contending as under:
i) It is stated that a case in Crime No.679 of 2015 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 342 and 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 4 of Women Harassment Act on the complaint of one Selvi, W/o.Selvaraj and arrested H.A.Martin and nine others and also obtained statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Besides that, it is stated that the 2nd respondent has also enquired into the complaint lodged against the TELC land grabber, namely, E.D.Charles and his henchmen and registered a case in Crime No.789 of 2014.
ii) It is further stated that the petitioner originally had given a complaint against the 3rd respondent and other persons, including a retired Judge, for which CSR No.234 of 2015 was issued to the petitioner and thereafter, a summon was also issued to him to appear before the Inspector of Police, Palakkarai Police Station, Trichy City. However, the petitioner neither attended the enquiry held on 08.09.2015 nor produced any documents in support of his contentions made in the complaint. Thereafter, another summon under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioner to attend the hearing on 11.10.2015 in the Palakkarai Police Station, Trichy. Even the petitioner has not attended any enquiry and did not care to send any reply.
iii) The 2nd respondent has stated that several litigations are pending between one office bearer and the other before the respective Courts and on a previous occasion when the Annual General Body Meeting of TELC was held on 23.02.2015 and 02.03.2015, Police protection was duly given to the TELC. It is further submitted that the annual General Body Meeting of TELC, Trichy was conducted by the 3rd respondent and one Edwin Jeyakumar, TELC on 28.11.2015 without any untoward incident. It is also stated that a case has been filed in this Court against the 2nd respondent for initiation of disciplinary action and though a counter has been filed by the Commissioner of Police in that case, the petitioner has been evading from receiving a copy of the counter.
iv) It is finally stated that it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent had failed to take action against the TELC Land grabber / 3rd respondent, as the 2nd respondent had taken proper action on the petition filed by one S.Victor and registered a case in Crime No.789 of 2014 on 04.11.2014 itself. It is submitted that since the petition filed by the petitioner does not contain any merits, it is liable to be dismissed in limine.
4. The 3rd respondent has also filed a counter, stating that the petition has been filed to oblige H.A.Martin and his group, that he was the Bishop of TELC and that his term expired on 14.01.2014 itself. Therefore, several attempts were made by him to grab the properties by obtaining some orders from this Court. Already a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22158 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner and an order was also obtained behind his back, pursuant to which, he applied for recalling the order vide M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014. It is finally submitted by the 3rd respondent that the petitioner is a front man for the said H.A.Martin and that he has no locus standi to file this petition, as he is not a member of TELC. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.
5. Heard the counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.
6. According to the 3rd respondent, the term of office, which was earlier held by Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin already got expired on 14.01.2014 itself and at present, he is not holding any office and is in no way connected with the administration of TELC properties. In contra to the said submission, the petitioner has contended that Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin is the legally elected Bishop and it is the 3rd respondent, who, in connivance with his henchmen and the 2nd respondent, attempted to disturb the peaceful administration of the TELC Church. However, the dispute with regard to the authority for holding office of the Church has to be agitated only before the Civil Forum, by duly letting evidence and production of documents in support their respective contentions.
7. The petitioner has stated that Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin has got an order from the Apex Court in his favour. But, a bare reading of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8458 of 2014, would amply prove the fact that the Apex Court has neither permitted Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin to continue as Bishop nor conferred any rights to assume his office, as the issue before the Apex Court was, whether Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 is applicable to TELC or not. For the sake of brevity, the relevant paragraphs from the said judgment of the Apex Court are extracted below:
?24. Looked at in the above mentioned background of the statutory scheme, we are of the opinion that the entire litigation between the parties herein is without any basis in law. It resulted in wastage of time of the judiciary as well as the administration. Apparently neither of the parties nor the administration had the time to examine or inclination to examine the scheme of the 1975 Act. We are sorry to say, even the judiciary (Bar & Bench) did not do any better/
25. In view of our above conclusion, it is really not necessary for us to examine various submissions made in this appeal by both the parties as all the submissions proceeded on the assumption that TELC is a Society governed by the provisions of the Act.
26. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The second respondent, if he still has any legally tenable grievance de hors the 1975 Act, is free to pursue such remedy available to him under the law.?
8. It is not in dispute that there are civil cases pending against both the parties. It is incorrect to state that the 2nd respondent has not taken any action on the petition filed by him, as it was the petitioner, who, inspite of receipt of summons, issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C., for his appearance, did not care to respond to those summons. Thus, it is clear that the complaint given by the petitioner was properly dealt with and action has also been taken thereon. Without reacting to the summons, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection to Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin and others thereby attempted to use this Court as a tool to sort out his differences, that exists between Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin and the 3rd respondent, which cannot be permissible.
9. It is pertinent for this Court to point out that the petitioner, being a Lawyer by profession, should have tendered correct professional advice and produced sufficient documents in proof of his membership or association with TELC Church to justify his conduct in filing the present petition on behalf of Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin and without doing so, he has simply filed this petition on his behalf, by stating that he used to visit the office of Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin frequently. Even assuming for the sake of argument that he has locus standi to file this petition, he cannot merely act as a spokesperson to Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin. Judgments expatiating on the role and conduct of lawyers are in multitude and I think it appropriate to extract only one passage from the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the Celebrated case in Bar Council of Maharashtra vs. M.V.Dabholkar etc., reported in (1975) 2 SCC 702, which reads as follows:
?52. The Bar is not a private guild, like that of 'barbers, butchers and candlestick-makers' but, by bold contrast, a public institution committed to public justice and pro bono publico service. The grant of a monopoly licence to practice law is based on three assumptions: (1) There is a socially useful function for the lawyer to perform, (2) The lawyer is a professional person who will perform that function, and (3) His performance as a professional person is regulated by himself not more formally, by the profession as a whole.?
10. A lawyer is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. A lawyer should have the responsibility to guide his/her clients through the legal system with both skill and tact and a lawyer should study the constitution, ordinances and regulations of quasi-judicial bodies, so that they could provide the best advice to his/her clients. They should analyze the probable outcome of cases by using their knowledge of legal matters. The help that a lawyer tenders to his/her clients is not merely "instrumental" as he/she is not simply a servant of his client in that sense. One of his / her most important responsibilities is to offer advice about ends.
11. In the present case on hand, the petitioner has misled this Court and wasted the time of judiciary as well as the administration by filing such frivolous petition. To add fuel to the flames, the petitioner has produced an order of this Court dated 04.12.2014 passed in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22158 of 2014, in which Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin himself was the petitioner, by suppressing the subsequent order of clarification dated 18.12.2014, passed in M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22158 of 2014. Knowing fully well that only the subsequent order prevails over, the petitioner has filed the previous order and had the 3rd respondent not brought the same to the notice of this Court, this Court would have proceeded to pass orders on the basis of the earlier order dated 04.12.2014. Thus, it is plain evident that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1, has observed as under:
"The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax evaders, Bank loan dodgers, and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.?
13. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court finds no reason to grant the relief sought by the petitioner, mainly on the ground of maintainability of this petition, as Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin is not before this Court. Secondly, the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, payable by the petitioner to Cheer (Non Governmental Organization), Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai (9941151555) and the said Organization shall utilize the amount for the welfare of the affected persons in the recent flood calamitous.
To
1. The Commissioner of Police, Police Commissioner Office, Trichy-1.
2. The Inspector of Police, Palakarai Police Station, Trichy.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .