CHACKO THOTTUMARICKAL Vs. LORENCE FRACIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants have filed the present Miscellaneous Criminal Case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashment of the order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mhow, District-Indore in Criminal Case No.2161/2018, by which the learned Judge has taken cognizance for offence under Sections 295-A and 298 of the I.P.C. against the applicants.

(2.) The respondent/complainant had filed a complaint against the applicants and three others to the effect that Catholic Diocese of Indore and Indore Diocese Social Service Society is registered under the M.P. Firms and Society Act; and in spite of complaints of financial irregularities, misappropriation etc. to the Sub-Registrar of the Firms and Society, no action has been taken the applicants. That, beyond the rights given by the said act, as Head of the Committee issued a letter dated 10.8.2017and the said letter was read over when Roman Catholic community had gathered for prayer and due to this act of the accused persons, the feeling of religious community has been hurt. It has further been stated that, they created a fear in the mind of the community and indulged into criminal conspiracy to carry on financial irregularities such as not maintenance of account books, not showing the contribution so received in the said books, and misappropriating ornaments received in religious functions, selling antiques of Church and not disclosing any information to the members. Thus, the accused persons have committed offence under Sections 120- A, 153 (3)2, 295-A, 298, 407, 408, 409, 420, 467, 468 of the IPC. After calling for the report from the police station Mhow and recording of the statement of the complainants, discharged all the accused persons from charges under Sections 120-A, 150-C, 407, 408, 409, 420, 467, 468 of the IPC, but took cognizance for offences under Sections 2695-A and 298 of the IPC. Being aggrieved with the said order, the applicant has filed the present petition for quashment of the order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, the learned Judge has erred in taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 295-A of the IPC in absence of the sanction order, as required under Section 196(1) of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that, the learned Judge has erred in taking the cognizance of the offence under Section 298 of the IPC, as neither the complaint nor the statements of the complainants and their witnesses spell out and the ingredients of offence under Section 295-A of the IPC. He further relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Singh Dhoni vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar and : another, 2017 7 SCC 760. The judgment passed by the High Court of U.P. in the case of Kamalakand Singh vs. Chairman/Managing Director, Bennetta Colman and Company Ltd, 1987 2 AWC 1451; 1987 DCR 662 1988 1 Crimes (HC) 106; 1987 0 Supreme (All) 317 as well as the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Harbhajan Singh @ Bhajji vs. Arvind Thakur, 2010 3 RCR(Cri) 100; 2009 0 Supreme (P & H) 1540.