CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY versus STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 1014 · Decided: 17-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1014
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY
v.
STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 836-41 of 2023)
MARCH 17, 2023
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Issuance of summons –
Legality of – A complaint was made against the appellant-archbishop
and other accused persons for having committed an offense u/s
120B, 406, 409, 418, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468 r/w 34 of IPC alleging
that the appellant along with other accused persons had fraudulently
disposed of certain immovable property belonging to the church –
The first complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed by the
court at Maradu on 30.09.2021 without taking cognizance of the
complaint as the counsel for complainant did not appear – On
02.04.2019, in another complaint on same set of facts, the trial
court (at Kakkanad) dismissed the complaint u/s. 203 of Cr.P.C.
with respect to offences u/ss. 409, 418, 420, 465, 467 and 468 of
the IPC, however issued summons to the appellants and other accused
persons for the offfences u/ss. 120-B, 406, 423 r/w s.34 IPC – The
appellant filed the revision application before the Sessions Court
but the same was dismissed and the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before
the High Court was also dismissed – Before the Supreme Court,
appellant contended that the instant complaint after dismissal of
the earlier complaint on same facts was not maintainable – Held:
Trial Court at Kakkanad in the instant complaint cases, before the
dismissal of the previous complaint, had already taken cognizance
by issuing summons to the appellant and others – It is true that the
complainant, in the instant complaint, should have disclosed the
full and correct facts more particularly with regard to the previous
complaint filed by him against the appellant and other accused but
mere non-disclosure of such facts, would not be a ground to set
aside the summons issued by the trial Court which after applying its
mind and having been prima facie satisfied about the commission of
the alleged offences u/ss. 120B, 406 and 423 r/w. 34 of IPC had
issued summons – All the three Courts below have discussed in detail
about the prima facie involvement of the appellant in the alleged
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 1014
1014
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1015
offences, and having carefully examined the record of the complaints
in question, there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by
the trial Court issuing summons against the appellant.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Restraint on
exercise of powers under Judicial Review – Held: Judicial restraint
is a virtue, and the predilections of individual judges, howsoever
well intentioned, cannot be permitted to be operated in utter
disregard of the well-recognized judicial principles governing
uniform application of law – Unwarranted judicial activism may
cause uncertainty or confusion not only in the mind of the authorities
but also in the mind of the litigants.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1. In case of Pramatha Nath Talukdar Vs. Saroj
Ranjan Sarkar, it was held with regard to filing of the second
complaint that a fresh complaint could be entertained after the
dismissal of previous complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal
Procedure Code when there was manifest error or manifest
miscarriage of justice or when fresh evidence was forthcoming.
It was further held that an order of dismissal under Section 203
of the Criminal Procedure Code is no bar to the entertainment of
a second complaint on the same facts, but it will be entertained
only in exceptional circumstances, e.g. that the previous order
was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of
nature of complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish
or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence,
have been brought on record in the previous proceedings have
been adduced. Having regard to the said legal position and various
decisions of the Supreme Court, it could not be said that the trial
court had committed any error in entertaining the complaints filed
by the respondent complainant, when the previous complaint filed
by him was pending before the other court, and more particularly
when the said court had dismissed the said previous complaint
for non- prosecution, without taking cognizance of the alleged
offences therein. [Paras 14 and 15][1028-D-F; 1030-D-E]
2. The Sessions Court in the Revision petitions filed by
the appellant had also upheld

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.