Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Criminal Proceedings Against Pastor Accused of Human Trafficking

Seeking quashing of the proceedings, Gideon had submitted that he was a dutiful citizen and a religious person who was running the home to save female children from being killed and from foeticide.

Justice G Ilangovan in the ruling reproduced the proverb 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' and said "it all started with good intentions, but, mid way it slipped. So the Proverb stands correct."

“Even if an act is done in a humanitarian ground, it must be done as per the law and if any violation is noticed, then that person has to face the prosecution. If any violation of the Rules are noticed, more particularly, running of a Child Home must be in conformity with the Rules and Regulations”.

Gideon and his wife were directors of Good Shepherd Evangelical Mission Private Limited which started functioning in 1991. Gideon submitted that later, the Board of directors, through a resolution, decided to run a home called Mose Ministries Home, for children. The court was informed that this was not a separate entity but a unit of Evangelical Mission Private Limited and no separate bank account existed.

The court was informed that steps were taken to register the Home under the provisions of Orphanages and Other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Act, 1960, with the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli. In this regard, a temporary certificate was issued which was to be in effect till issuance of a proper certificate by the Board of Control formed under the Provisions of Orphanages and Other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Act, 1960.

The court was further informed that when inspections were carried out for granting a permanent certificate, some defects were pointed out with respect to non maintenance of Registers for admission, source of rescued kids, particulars of parents etc and Gideon was asked to rectify the same and give explanation. This process went on and the Social Welfare Department, being unsatisfied with the report submitted, registered a complaint under Sections 20(2) of Tamil Nadu Hostel and Home for Women and Children Regulation Act, 2014, Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and final report was filed.

The court noted that when Gideon had moved the court against this final report, a division bench had asked him to furnish all the records, which he failed to do citing that the registers were taken away by some persons. The court noted that the Division bench, finding that Gideon had approached the court with unclean hands, had ordered CBI investigation into the matter which was to be completed within a period of nine months.

Though Gideon argued that the statutory provisions with respect to sanction was not complied with, the court noted that the Secretary to Government had accorded sanction as per Section 196 (1) CrPC and that the District Collector, Trichy had also accorded sanction for prosecuting Gideon. The court said that there is no bar for the competent authority to accord sanction pending proceedings before the High Court.

With respect to the allegations of kidnapping though Gideon argued that these offences were not made out, the court noted that these are factual aspects that could not be gone into by the High Court while dealing with the quash petition and the same have to be looked into by the trail court.

The court however noted that the provisions of Kidnapping might not be attracted in this case as the Home was started for taking care of abandoned female children even though while committing procedural violations.

With respect to concealing the kids, the court also opined that the same will not be attracted as the Home was running on a temporary license in Usilampatti and later shifted address. Thus, the court noted that there was no question of concealment. The court also opined that there was no intention on Gideon’s part to promote dis-harmony, enmity, hatred or ill-will between religious groups.

With respect to the allegations of trafficking and sexual abuse, the court reiterated that it has to be decided based on facts, and at no stretch of imagination, the court can decide the veracity.

"I am of the considered view that only some of the penal provisions are not attracted, as stated above. In respect of the other penal provisions charges must be properly framed and trial must be undertaken," said the court.

The court also said that since the petition is facing prosecution for several years and has been frequently visiting Germany, his personal appearance will remain  dispensed with.

Case Title: Pastor Gideon Jacob v State and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 182

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Samidurai

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.Sudevkumar for R1 Counsel for CBI, Mrs.Geetha for R2