JACOB KURUVILA Vs. VER REV BABY EACHIRAVELIL VIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in Petty Case No. 560 of 2004 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash a complaint filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mulanthuruthy and all further proceedings.

(2.) The first petitioner is the Vicar of St. Ignatious Church, Ponnurunni and the second petitioner is working as Vicar of St. Mary's Church, Vadakara. He is stated to be a Hindi teacher, working in Upper Primary School, Edackattuvayal. According to them, they are Parishioners of St. George Simhasana Church situated at Perumpally and members of the General Body of that Church. It is averred that the 1st respondent is the Vicar of St. George Simhasana Church, Perumpally and the 2nd respondent is his relative. It is averred that there were lot of complaints against respondents 1 and 2. It is averred that a meeting was scheduled to be held at 11 am at St. George Simhasana Church on 17.10.2004 and at that time a former trustee, Mr. Mathai Kalarickal, had staged a Satyagraha in front of the meeting hall. It is averred that respondents 1 and 2 filed a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Mulanthuruthy alleging that Mr. Mathai Kalarickal attempted to destroy the vehicle of the 1st respondent. On getting that complaint, the 3rd respondent Sub Inspector of Police came to the Church and made enquiries regarding the complaint made by the 1st respondent. It was revealed that the complaint was false and at that time, the petitioners intervened and protested against the filing of such false complaint. It is averred that the respondents 1 and 2 exerted undue influence on the 3rd respondent, who took the petitioners to the police station and from there to the Government Hospital, Tripunithura. It was alleged that the doctor on duty was a person who belongs to Orthodox Syrian faction and he issued a certificate to the effect that the petitioners had consumed alcohol, but not under the influence of the same. It is also alleged that after obtaining such a certificate, the 3rd respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate alleging that the petitioners committed an offence punishable under Section 51A of the Kerala Police Act and thereafter issued notice to the petitioners to appear before the Magistrate at 11 am on 4.11.2004. According to the petitioners even if the entire averments contained in the complaint are accepted as such, it does not disclose any offence at all. It is averred that the petitioners came to the Church to attend the general body meeting after celebrating the Eucharist in their respective Parishes and during the course of celebration of the Holy Qurbana, the petitioners had consumed small quantity of mass wine. It is averred that they had never consumed any alcohol during their life. Hence this Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash the complaint.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit contending that the filing of the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is an abuse of process of Court and this Court is called upon to adjudicate the factual aspects, for which no materials are before it. It is alleged that the first respondent had with him all evidence and materials to substantiate the complaint that he has made before the concerned officials. It is alleged that the attempt of the petitioners is to frog leap and thereby prevent the administration of justice in the appropriate forum. It is averred that the contents of the certificates are matters to be considered by the Court below while taking evidence. It is contended that the petitioners did not conduct any holy mass on the date of incident and that is a matter to be proved by adducing evidence. It is contended that the mass wine is only a mixture of 1/2 ounce wine in 1 ounce water, which has no intoxicating effect. It is averred that the petitioners cannot take refuge under mass wine after consuming liquor. The time of mass, whether they performed the mass, quantity, etc. are all questions of fact which are to be determined by adducing evidence. It is contended that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 51A of the Police Act have been clearly made out in the complaint and the charge. It is further averred that the riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour in the public place have been taken note of even by the police officer on his personal presence. It is also contended that the actions of the petitioners herein constituted nuisance and breach of peace. It is also contended that the petitioners had admitted their guilt before the Church authorities and the first respondent has documentary and oral evidence to prove the case. It is also contended that the allegations levelled against respondents 1 and 2 are false. It is also contended that none of the parameters to exercise the powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are established in this case. It is contended that this Court is relegated to the position of a Magistrate Court calling upon to appreciate evidence and adjudicate the factual disputes. Hence respondents 1 and 2 prayed for the dismissal of the Criminal Miscellaneous Case.