Kerala High Court Refuses To Quash Defamation Case Against Elected Members Of Governing Committee Of St John's Orthodox Church, Ayroor

The Kerala High Court on Monday refused to quash the complaint against the elected members of the governing committee of the Parish of St.Johns Salem Orthodox Church, Ayroor, for the alleged defamatory statement against other members of the Parish in the representation submitted to the Metropolitan Bishop.

Justice K. Babu observed that the facts of the present case do not fall within the ambit of those circumstances wherein it could exercise the power to quash the criminal proceeding that had been initiated. It observed that the petitioners had not taken reasonable care in including the alleged defamatory statements against the other Parish members in the representation before the Metropolitan Bishop. 

The petitioners, who are elected members in the Parish governing committee of St.Johns Salem Orthodox Church, Ayroor, under the ecclesiastical governance of the Metropolitan Bishop of Nilakkal diocese in Pathanamthitta District, had a difference of opinion with the members of the Parish, the respondents in the present case.

The case pending against the petitioners before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta in that they allegedly prepared a statement containing defamatory remarks against the respondents. The representation signed by 32 members of the Parish was then submitted to the Metropolitan Bishop. It was also allegedly circulated amongst the public. It has been alleged that the petitioners committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 500 of IPC.  

The court below has taken cognizance of the offences based on the private complaints filed by the respondents. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners approached the High Court seeking the complaint to be quashed. 

It was submitted by the counsels for the petitioners that there was no defamatory element in the statement, and that the petitioners had signed the same representing all the members of the Parish. It was argued that the said statement would fall within the ambit of the Eighth Exception of Section 499 IPC, and they would accordingly, not be liable to be prosecuted for the same. 

On the other hand, it was argued by the counsels for the respondents that the Metropolitan Bishop to whom the statement was presented was not the lawful authority as referred to in the Eighth Exception of Section 499 IPC, and could not be regarded as the reply to the complaint that had been filed by the respondents. 

The court in this case perused the Eighth Exception of Section 499 IPC which stipulates, "Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person," and which it ascertained was to be read along with Section 52 IPC that defines 'good faith'. 

It noted that in order to avail the protection under the Eighth Exception of Section 499 IPC, the following two requisites ought to be satisfied - firstly, that the accusation ought to be made to a person in authority over the party accused; and secondly, that the accusation must be preferred in good faith. 

The Court thus proceeded to deliver its decision on the following two aspects. 

A. Whether the Metropolitan Bishop is a lawful authority over the parties regarding the subject matter

The court noted that the subject matter involved in this case concerned the temporal and religious issues relating to the Parish and other members. The court found that the allegations in the statement pertain to the religious discharge of duties by a Parish Priest, as well as some other allegations relating to the funds managed by the Priest and others. 

The Court therefore held on this ground that, 

"The Metropolitan Bishop and the head of the Malankara Metropolitan and Catholicose are the spiritual superiors of the members of the Parish and, thus, the lawful authorities as far as the subject matter is concerned. In religious and temporal matters affecting a religious community, the religious head (the spiritual superior) is the lawful authority referred to in the Eighth Exception of Section 499 IPC". 

B. Whether the alleged accusations had been preferred in good faith 

The court in this case noted that as per Section 52 IPC, 'good faith' includes 'due care' and 'attention', and that it refers to the degree of reasonableness in the care sought to be exercised.

It referred to the Apex Court decision in Chamanlal v. State of Pubjab (1970), as per which good faith requires care and caution, and prudence in the background of context and circumstances.

Going by the above precedent, the court found that the petitioners had not taken reasonable care in including the alleged statements in the representation submitted to the Metropolitan Bishop. 

The court also noted that the power of quashing criminal proceedings ought to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and in the rarest of rare cases. 

"The Court cannot be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR, unless the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion. The extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice," the bench said, while relying on various precedents. 

It thus held that the facts of the present case do not fall within the ambit of such circumstances and thereby refused to quash the criminal proceeding. The petitions were thus dismissed. 

Case Title: Varghese Abraham & Ors. v. Shinu P. & Anr. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 165 

Click Here To Read/Download The Order