Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. Joshi Varghese and others

``` CR ``` # `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4196 OF 2022 ``` ``` [AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 21.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.93/2022 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD] ``` ## `PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:` ``` CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY,AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.LATE PHILIPOSE, MAJOR ARCHBISHOP, SYRO MALABAR CHURCH, ARCH BISHOP HOUSE, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM -682031, NOW RESIDING AT MAJOR ARCHIEPISCOPAL CURIA, MOUNT ST.THOMAS, KAKKANAD, KOCHI PIN - 682030 BY ADVS. DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN JOHN VARGHESE K.A.ABHILASH VINOD S. PILLAI NAYANA VARGHESE MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M. AHAMMAD SACHIN K. K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL) RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, 2ND ACCUSED AND STATE: 1JOSHI VARGHESE, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.VAREETH, THELAKKADAN VEETTIL, MALAMURI BHAGOM, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 683545 2REV.FR.JOSHY PUTHUVA,AGED 50 YEARS S/O.OUSEPH,PRO.VIKAR, ST.JOHN'S CHURCH, UNIVERSITY CENTRE,CUSAT,PIN - 682032 3STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682031 BY ADVS. V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) N.RAJESH(K/1717/1999) GOPAKUMAR P.(K/1116-C/2011) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.10.2022 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4198/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 09.11.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 2 ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4198 OF 2022 ``` ``` [AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 21.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.1886/2019 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD] ``` ## `PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:` ``` CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY,AGED 77 YEARS S/O.LATE PHILIPOSE, MAJOR ARCHBISHOP, SYRO MALABAR CHURCH, ARCH BISHOP HOUSE, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM -682031, NOW RESIDING AT MAJOR ARCHIEPISCOPAL CURIA, MOUNT ST.THOMAS, KAKKANAD, KOCHI PIN - 682030 BY ADVS. DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN JOHN VARGHESE K.A.ABHILASH VINOD S. PILLAI NAYANA VARGHESE MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M. AHAMMAD SACHIN K. K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL) ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, 2ND RESPONDENT AND STATE:` ``` 1JOSHI VARGHESE,AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.VAREETH, THELAKKADAN VEETTIL, MALAMURI BHAGOM, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683545 2REV.FR.JOSHY PUTHUVA,AGED 50 YEARS S/O.OUSEPH,PRO.VIKAR, ST.JOHN'S CHURCH, UNIVERSITY CENTRE,CUSAT,PIN - 682032 3STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADVS.RAJESH N GOPAKUMAR P.(K/1116-C/2011) GIMMY P ANTONY(K/000150/1989) V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)(K/000364/1975) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.10.2022 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4196/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 09.11.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 3 ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4201 OF 2022 ``` ``` [AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 21.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.94/2020 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD] PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: ``` ``` CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY,AGED 77 YEARS S/O.LATE PHILIPOSE, MAJOR ARCHBISHOP, SYRO MALABAR CHURCH, ARCH BISHOP HOUSE, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM -682031, NOW RESIDING AT MAJOR ARCHIEPISCOPAL CURIA, MOUNT ST.THOMAS, KAKKANAD, KOCHI PIN - 682030 BY ADVS. DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN JOHN VARGHESE K.A.ABHILASH VINOD S. PILLAI NAYANA VARGHESE MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M. AHAMMAD SACHIN K. K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL) ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, 2ND ACCUSED AND STATE:` ``` 1JOSHI VARGHESE, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.VAREETH, THELAKKADAN VEETTIL, MALAMURI BHAGOM, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 683545 2REV.FR.JOSHY PUTHUVA, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.OUSEPH,PRO.VIKAR, ST.JOHN'S CHURCH, UNIVERSITY CENTRE,CUSAT,PIN - 682032 3STATE OF KERALAREP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682031 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.10.2022 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4196/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 09.11.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 4 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4212 OF 2022 ``` ``` [AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 21.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.632/2019 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD] ``` ## `PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:` ``` CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY,AGED 77 YEARS S/O.LATE PHILIPOSE, MAJOR ARCHBISHOP, SYRO MALABAR CHURCH, ARCH BISHOP HOUSE, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM -682031, NOW RESIDING AT MAJOR ARCHIEPISCOPAL CURIA, MOUNT ST.THOMAS, KAKKANAD, KOCHI,PIN - 682030 BY ADVS.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN JOHN VARGHESE VINOD S. PILLAI K.A.ABHILASH NAYANA VARGHESE MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M. AHAMMAD SACHIN K. K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL) ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, 2ND AND 3RD ACCUSED AND STATE:` ``` 1JOSHI VARGHESE,AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.VAREETH, THELAKKADAN VEETTIL, MALAMURI BHAGOM, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 683545 2REV.FR.JOSHY PUTHUVA,S/O.OUSEPH,PRO.VIKAR, ST.JOHN'S CHURCH, UNIVERSITY CENTRE, CUSAT, PIN - 682032 3SAJU VARGHESE, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.JOHN VARGHESE, GOLDEN OAK VILLA, PADAMUGHAL, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 682030 4STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682031 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.10.2022 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4196/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 09.11.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 5 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4218 OF 2022 ``` ``` [TO CONSIDER C.M.P.NO.798/2022 IN C.C.NO.51/2020 FOR EXEMPTION OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE WITHOUT INSISTING FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND TAKING BAIL] ``` ## `PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:` ``` CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY,AGED 77 YEARS S/O.LATE PHILIPOSE, MAJOR ARCHBISHOP, SYRO MALABAR CHURCH, ARCH BISHOP HOUSE, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM - 682031, NOW RESIDING AT MAJOR ARCHIEPISCOPAL CURIA, MOUNT ST.THOMAS,KAKKANAD, KOCHI PIN - 682030 BY ADVS. DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN JOHN VARGHESE K.A.ABHILASH VINOD S. PILLAI MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M. NAYANA VARGHESE AHAMMAD SACHIN K. K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL) ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, 2ND ACCUSED AND STATE:` ``` 1JOSHI VARGHESE,AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.VAREETH, THELAKKADAN VEETTIL, MALAMURI BHAGOM, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 683545 2REV.FR.JOSHY PUTHUVA,AGED 50 YEARS S/O.OUSEPH,PRO.VIKAR, ST.JOHN'S CHURCH, UNIVERSITY CENTRE,CUSAT PIN - 682032 3STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682031 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.10.2022 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4196/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 09.11.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 6 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4226 OF 2022 ``` ``` [TO CONSIDER C.M.P.NO.807/2022 IN C.C.NO.50/2020 FOR EXEMPTION OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE WITHOUT INSISTING FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND TAKING BAIL] ``` ## `PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:` ``` CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY,AGED 77 YEARS S/O.LATE PHILIPOSE, MAJOR ARCHBISHOP, SYRO MALABAR CHURCH, ARCH BISHOP HOUSE, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM -682031, NOW RESIDING AT MAJOR ARCHIEPISCOPAL CURIA, MOUNT ST.THOMAS, KAKKANAD, KOCHI PIN - 682030 BY ADVS.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN JOHN VARGHESE VINOD S. PILLAI K.A.ABHILASH MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M. NAYANA VARGHESE K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL) AHAMMAD SACHIN K. ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, 2ND ACCUSED AND STATE:` ``` 1JOSHI VARGHESE, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.VAREETH, THELAKKADAN VEETTIL, MALAMURI BHAGOM, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 683545 2REV.FR.JOSHY PUTHUVA,AGED 50 YEARS S/O.OUSEPH,PRO.VIKAR, ST.JOHN'S CHURCH, UNIVERSITY CENTRE,CUSAT PIN - 682032 3STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.10.2022 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4196/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 09.11.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 7 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4232 OF 2022 ``` ``` [TO CONSIDER C.M.P.NO.794/2022 IN C.C.NO.93/2020 FOR EXEMPTION OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE WITHOUT INSISTING FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND TAKING BAIL] ``` ## `PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:` ``` CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY,AGED 77 YEARS S/O.LATE PHILIPOSE, MAJOR ARCHBISHOP, SYRO MALABAR CHURCH, ARCH BISHOP HOUSE, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM -682031, NOW RESIDING AT MAJOR ARCHIEPISCOPAL CURIA, MOUNT ST.THOMAS, KAKKANAD, KOCHI PIN - 682030 BY ADVS.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN JOHN VARGHESE VINOD S. PILLAI K.A.ABHILASH MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M. NAYANA VARGHESE AHAMMAD SACHIN K. K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL) ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, 2ND ACCUSED AND STATE:` ``` 1JOSHI VARGHESE,AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.VAREETH, THELAKKADAN VEETTIL, MALAMURI BHAGOM, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 683545 2REV.FR.JOSHY PUTHUVA,AGED 50 YEARS S/O.OUSEPH, PRO.VIKAR, ST.JOHN'S CHURCH, UNIVERSITY CENTRE, CUSAT,PIN - 682032 3STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682031 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.10.2022 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4196/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 09.11.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 8 ## `O R D E R` ``` [Crl.MC Nos.4196/2022, 4198/2022, 4201/2022, 4212/2022, 4218/2022, 4226/2022, 4232/2022] ``` …. ``` All these Criminal M.C.s are filed by the accused seeking a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, to consider the applications submitted by him under section 205 of ``` ``` the Cr.P.C, for exemption from personal appearance in the cases registered against him, without insisting for his personal appearance, even for the first time. ``` ``` 2. All the said cases are instituted upon ``` ``` private complaints submitted by the 1[st] ``` ``` respondent in all the said Crl.M.C.s, and the ``` ``` offences alleged are under Section 406,423, 120B ``` ``` read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, ``` ``` and the petitioner is the first accused in all the said cases. In all the said cases, the ``` ``` petitioner was served with the summons and the petitioner submitted applications under Section ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 9 ``` 205 of Cr.P.C seeking exemption from personal ``` ``` appearance before the court and to permit him to appear through his counsel. The applications ``` ``` submitted in this regard are pending before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to appear in person ``` ``` before the court, even before passing orders on the said applications. The details of the cases and the applications filed are as follows: ``` |`SL`<br>`No`|`Crl MC. NO`|`CC No`|`CMP No`| |---|---|---|---| |`1.`|`Crl.M.C.No.4212/2022`|`C.C.No.632/2019`|`CMP.No.869/2022`| |`2.`|`Crl.M.C.No.4201/2022`|`C.C.No.94/2020`|`CMP.No.800/2022`| |`3.`|`Crl.M.C.No.4198/2022`|`C.C.No.1886/2019`|`CMP.No.803/2022`| |`4.`|`Crl.M.C.No.4196/2022`|`C.C.No.93/2022`|`CMP.No.1379/2022`| |`5.`|`Crl.M.C.No.4226/2022`|`C.C.No.50/2020`|`CMP.No.807/2022`| |`6.`|`Crl.M.C.No.4232/2022`|`C.C.No.93/2020`|`CMP.No.794/2022`| |`7.`|`Crl.M.C.No.4218/2022`|`C.C.No.51/2020`|`CMP.No.798/2022`| ``` 3.In the cases shown as serial Nos. 1 to 4, ``` ``` the learned Magistrate passed orders directing ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 10 ``` the petitioners to appear before the court, ``` ``` before the respective applications for exemption are considered, whereas in the remaining cases, oral directions to that effect were issued. These Crl.M.Cs were filed in such circumstances, ``` ``` seeking a direction to the learned Magistrate to consider the applications submitted for exemption under Section 205 of Cr.P.C, without ``` ``` insisting on the personal appearance of the petitioner. ``` ``` 4.The reason highlighted by the petitioner ``` ``` for exemption from personal appearance, as ``` ## `mentioned in his applications, is as follows;` ``` “2. The petitioner is a senior citizen aged 77 years. The petitioner is the head of Syro Malabar Church spread over whole world, having a membership of 55 lakhs. The petitioner bestowed with the duty of performing religious ceremonies, rituals, including ordination of Bishops,pries, consecration of churches, etc. The petitioner also had to render supervisory administrative functions over 35 dioceses out of which 4 are out of India and 18 are outside Kerala. The petitioner is also the head of the Kerala Catholic Bishop’s Council and he has to attend meetings as well as perform duties as the President of KCBC. The petitioner is also ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 11 ``` the member of College of Cardinals and also has to attend meetings in Rome. ``` ``` 3. The allegation in this case are basically based on documents. The identification of the petitioner is not necessary with respect to the evidence in this case. The petitioner had filed an undertaking stating that he will not dispute his identity, he will appear through a counsel and his counsel will be present on all posting dates and also he does not have any objection in taking the evidence in his absence treating the presence of the counsel as his presence. The petitioner also has authorized his counsel to record his plea.” ``` ``` 5.Heard Sri.P.Vijayabahanu, the learned ``` ``` Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri.John Varghese, ``` ``` learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in ``` ``` all the Crl.M.Cs, Sri.Vipin Narayan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. ``` ``` V.Rajendran learned Counsel appearing for 1[st] ``` ``` respondent/complainant. ``` ``` 6. The learned Senior Counsel contends that, ``` ``` as per Section 205 of Cr.P.C., the learned ``` ``` Magistrate has ample power to grant exemption to ``` ``` the petitioner from appearing in person, and that power includes the exemption for the first ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 12 ``` appearance also. Therefore, when the petitioner submitted the applications in this regard, the learned Magistrate ought to have taken a decision thereon first, before insisting on his personal appearance. The learned Senior Counsel places reliance on various decisions such as M/s.Bhaskar Industries Ltd v. Bhiwani Denim Apparels Ltd and Others[(2001) 7 SCC 401], TGN Kumar v. State of Kerala And others [2011 (1) KLT 362], Rameshwar Yadav and others v. State of Bihar and another [(2018) 4 SCC 608], Puneet Dalmia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad [(2020) 12 SCC 695], Mathew v. State of Kerala [1986 KLT 128], Raman Nair v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 714], Jain Babu v. Joseph [2008 (4) KLT 16], Raju.T.P v. State of Kerala [2009 (3) KHC 14], Sarath.S v. State of Kerala [2017 (3) KLT 95], Kaveri and others v. The State [MANU/OR/0296/1994], Ramesh Chandra Lath v. State of Orissa [MANU/OR/0428/1991], Surojith Sen and others v. ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 13 ``` Sanatan Behera [MANU/OR/0182/1999], Ajit Kumar Chakraborty and others v. Serampore Municipality ``` ``` [MANU/WB/0188/1988], Manager, V.G Panneerdas and Company v. Nataraja Thevar [MANU/TN/0444/1987] and M.Shyam Prasad Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh [MANU/AP/0555/1992] ``` ``` 7.The aforesaid contentions are stoutly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, the 1[st] respondent herein. According to him, the petitioner does not have any vested right to seek exemption, and it is the discretion of the court concerned. In this case, ``` ``` the court has not rejected the prayer sought by the petitioner but only insisted on the ``` ``` appearance of the petitioner so that he can seek ``` ``` bail by offering sureties and executing bonds, thereby subjecting himself to the jurisdiction ``` ``` of the court and making an assurance before the ``` ``` court through a bond to the effect that he shall ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 14 ``` cooperate with the trial by abiding by the conditions imposed by the court. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon statutory stipulations contained in Section 437 of Cr.P.C, which contain certain conditions to be imposed by the court while the accused is released on bail when he is arrested and brought before the court or appears before the court, in a case in which non-bailable offences are alleged. It is contended that, admittedly, the petitioner is the head of Syro Malabar Church spread over the whole world. Most of the witnesses to be examined in the case belong to the said Church, and the documents to be summoned/perused are in the custody of the members of the Church governed by him. Therefore, since he is holding an influential position, it is absolutely necessary to execute a bond, undertaking to abide by the mandatory conditions contemplated ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 15 ``` under Section 437 Cr.P.C, including the condition that he shall not directly or ``` ``` indirectly influence the witnesses and shall not ``` ``` dissuade such witnesses from disclosing such facts to the court necessary for the case or shall not tamper with the evidence. However, the ``` ``` learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent fairly ``` ``` conceded that he does not have any objection in granting exemption to the petitioner from ``` ``` personal appearance, once the petitioner appears ``` ``` before the court and is released on bail upon executing the bond. ``` ``` 8.Thus, the questions to be decided are (1) whether the petitioner has any right to insist on the consideration of his application for ``` ``` personal exemption without his personal ``` ``` appearance for the first time and (2) whether the order directing the personal appearance of the petitioner passed by the learned Magistrate, ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 16 ``` before taking a decision submitted by the petitioner under section 205 of Cr.P.C is ``` ``` legally correct or not. ``` ``` 9. While considering the first question, the ``` ``` relevant provision is Section 205 of the Cr.P.C, ``` ``` which reads as follows: ``` ``` “205. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused. ``` ``` (1)Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. ``` ``` (2)But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner herein before provided.” ``` ``` 10. From the reading of the said provision, ``` ``` it can be seen that, the Magistrate has the ``` ``` discretion to exempt the accused from personal ``` ``` appearance, even at the time of issuance of ``` ``` summons. The circumstances under which such ``` ``` discretion can be exercised were the subject ``` ``` matter of a large number of decisions of the ``` ``` Honourable Supreme Court and various High ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 17 ``` Courts. InBhaskar Industries (supra), it was ``` ``` observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in para 14 as follows: ``` ``` “…….Presence of the accused in the Court is not for marking his attendance just for the sake of seeing him in the court. It is to enable the Court to proceed with the trial. If the progress of the trial can be achieved even in the absence of the accused the court can certainly take into account the magnitude of the sufferings which a particular accused person may have to bear with in order to make himself present in the court in that particular case.” ``` ``` 11.In paragraphs 16, 17 and 19, it was ``` ## `observed as follows:` ``` 16. Section 251 is the commencing provision in Chapter XX of the Code which deals with trial of summons cases by magistrates. It enjoins on the court to ask the accused whether he pleads guilty when the accused appears or is brought before the magistrate. The appearance envisaged therein can either be by personal attendance of the accused or through his advocate. This can be understood from Section 205(1) of the Code which says that whenever a magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. ``` ``` 17.Thus, in appropriate cases the magistrate can allow an accused to make even the first appearance through a counsel. The magistrate is empowered to record the plea of the accused even when his counsel makes such plea on behalf of the accused in a case where the personal appearance of the accused is dispensed with. Section 317 of the Code has to be viewed in the above perspective as it empowers the court to dispense with the ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 18 ``` personal attendance of the accused (provided he is represented by a counsel in that case) even for proceeding with the further steps in the case. However, one precaution which the court should take in such a situation is that the said benefit need be granted only to an accused who gives an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court that he would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in the case, and that a counsel on his behalf would be present in court and that he has no objection in taking evidence in his absence. This precaution is necessary for the further progress of the proceedings including examination of the witnesses. 18….. ``` ``` 19.The position, therefore, boils down to this:It is within the powers of a magistrate and his judicial discretion to dispense with the personal appearance of an accused either throughout or at any particular stage of such proceedings in a summons case, if the magistrate finds that insistence of his personal presence would itself inflict enormous suffering or tribulations to him and the comparative advantage would be less. Such discretion need be exercised only in rare instances where due to far distance at which the accused resides or carries on business or on account of any physical or other good reasons the magistrate feels that dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused would only be in the interest of justice. However,the magistrate who grants such benefit to the accused must take precautions enumerated above,as a matter of course. We may reiterate that when as accused makes an application to a magistrate through his duly authorized counsel praying for affording the benefit of his personal presence being dispensed with the magistrate can consider all aspects and pass appropriate orders thereon before proceeding further.” ``` ``` 12.It is to be noted that the case dealt ``` ``` with in Bhaskar Industries (supra) was a summons ``` ``` case for the offence under Section 138 of the ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 19 ``` Negotiable Instruments Act. The factual ``` ``` circumstances under which the same rendered were ``` ``` that the accused was from a different State and was implicated as an accused because he was the ``` ``` Director of the Company. ``` ``` 13.The said view was reiterated by the ``` ``` Honourable Supreme Court inTGN Kumar’s case (supra), which was again a case where the offence was under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. ``` ``` 14.InPuneet Dalmia’s case (supra), the ``` ``` offences alleged were under Sections 420 and ``` ``` 409, read with Section 120B of IPC and Sections ``` ``` 9, 12, 13(2) and 13(1)(c) and (d) of the ``` ``` prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After referring to theBhaskar Industriescase ``` ``` (supra), it was held that the said principles ``` ``` could also be applied in that case, even though ``` ``` the allegations were serious. However, in the ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 20 ``` said case, the exemption was sought after the petitioner therein was released on bail by the court and hence the factual situation was ``` ``` different from that of this case. ``` ``` 15. In Rameshwar Yadav’s case (supra), the ``` ``` Honourable Supreme Court upheld the discretion ``` ``` vested upon the learned Magistrate in granting exemption from personal appearance in a case ``` ``` registered for the offence punishable under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and ``` ``` Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. However, the ``` ``` question considered therein was whether the powers under Section 205 Cr.p.C could be ``` ``` exercised, after the accused appeared in person without claiming exemption. It was held that the ``` ``` said discretion is available for the Magistrate ``` ``` even after the appearance of the accused. ``` ``` 16. In Mathew’s case(supra), the power of ``` ``` the Magistrate to grant an exemption for the ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 21 ``` first appearance in a prosecution for the ``` ``` offence under Section 420 of IPC was considered by this court. In the said case, the accused was in Switzerland, and a non bailable warrant was issued against him and his passport was also impounded, making his return impossible. While considering the application for exemption under ``` ``` Section 205 of Cr.P.C, it was observed by this ``` ``` court in para 6 of the judgment in the manner as follows: ``` ``` “The very existence of the courts is for dispensation of justice. The process of courts should not be used for harassment of litigants. The insistence on the appearance of parties before court need be only if it becomes absolutely necessary for some purpose. Courts are entitled to compel the appearance of the accused. But such insistence should not be for the mere pleasure of the accused being seen in the dock. Sometimes, his presence may be absolutely essential, say for instance for questioning him or for himself being identified by witnesses. Insistence on his appearance in such cases may be alright. To insist on his appearance on a day when his appearance has nothing to do with the progress of the case will only result in unnecessary harassment, especially when he has some inconvenience and his counsel is prepared to represent him. In this case that is what actually happened. The petitioner who is the accused before the Magistrate is already in Switzerland. Even if he wanted he ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 22 ``` was not in a position to come over to India and appear before the Magistrate because on the requisition of the Magistrate himself his passport was impounded by the concerned authorities. The Magistrate ought to have realized the fact that under such circumstances appearance of the accused before him was rather an impossibility. One could only enjoy sadistic pleasure by insisting or an unnecessary impossibility and penalizing a person for not complying with such a condition” ``` ``` 17.InRaju T.P’s case (supra), this Court ``` ``` held that the said power could be exercised ``` ``` subject to the discretion of the court. It was further observed that discretion is to be ``` ``` exercised considering not only the convenience ``` ``` of the prosecution but also the difficulties ``` ``` expressed by the accused. It was further ``` ``` observed that the said power is available in ``` ``` warrant cases as well. It was a case where the accused was working in Pune. ``` ``` 18. In Sarath. S’s case (supra), this court ``` ``` held that the pendency of a non bailable warrant against the accused cannot be a ground for refusing the prayer under section 205 of Cr.p.C, ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 23 ``` if appropriate grounds are made out. That observation was made in a case of warrant trial ``` ``` where the accused was working at Sharjah, and a ``` ``` non bailable warrant was issued by JFCM, ``` ``` Mavelikkara. ``` ``` 19. In the other decisions cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the Orrisa High Court, Madras High Court, Calcutta High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court have taken the same view. ``` ``` 20. Thus, upon scanning through all the said ``` ``` decisions, the only conclusion possible is that ``` ``` the Magistrate has the discretion to grant ``` ``` exemption from personal appearance to the ``` ``` accused, even before his first appearance in ``` ``` person, and he can be permitted to appear ``` ``` through counsel if appropriate grounds are made out. The said discretion is available even in both summons and warrant cases. However, going ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 24 ``` by the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court inBhaskar industriescase, such ``` ``` discretion can be exercised only in rare cases where the Magistrate feels that personal attendance could be dispensed with due to far distance at which the accused resides or carries ``` ``` on business or on account of physical or other ``` ``` goods reasons. ``` ``` 21. The said conclusion leads us to the next ``` ``` question, i.e., whether the action of the learned Magistrate in insisting on the personal ``` ``` appearance while his applications were pending ``` ``` consideration is correct. It is true that, in ``` ``` some of the decisions referred to above (Raju T.P ‘s case and Sarath.S’s case), it was ``` ``` categorically held that even the first ``` ``` appearance of the accused could be permitted to be made through counsel if there are sufficient reasons indicating hardships for the accused in ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 25 ``` appearing before the court. It is also discernible that in those cases, the accused ``` ``` persons were working out of the State or abroad, ``` ``` and non bailable warrants happened to be issued. ``` ``` 22.In this case, it is evident that the ``` ``` applications submitted by the petitioner were not dismissed, and the same are pending ``` ``` consideration. There is no doubt that the normal ``` ``` rule is that, upon receipt of a summons, the ``` ``` accused is under an obligation to appear before the Court unless he is exempted from personal ``` ``` appearance. It is a well settled position of law ``` ``` that the exemption, which is an exception to the normal rule, is subject to the discretion of the ``` ``` Court, which has to be exercised cautiously and ``` ``` judiciously in rare instances,(as held in ``` ``` Bhaskar Industries Case (supra) taking into ``` ``` account the hardship that is likely to be caused to the accused. It is not necessary to insist on ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 26 ``` the physical appearance of the accused on all ``` ``` posting dates, unless his appearance is ``` ``` absolutely necessary for the proceedings of the ``` ``` day. If the appearance can be dispensed with, without affecting the proceedings of the court, appropriate orders in this regard should be ``` ``` passed. ``` ``` 23. However, when the exemption sought is ``` ``` for the first appearance, the standards to be applied should be more stringent. In this regard, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent, relying on the ``` ``` stipulations in section 437 of Cr.P.C, is ``` ``` relevant. The said provision deals with the circumstances under which bail can be granted to a person who is accused of a non-bailable ``` ``` offence, when he is brought before the court or ``` ``` appears before the court. Subsection (3) of Section 437 reads as follows: ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 27 ``` “437(3): When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub- section (1), the Court may impose any condition which the Court considers necessary- ``` ``` (a)in order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, or ``` ``` (b) in order to ensure that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected, or ``` ``` (c)otherwise in the interests of justice.” ``` ``` 24.From the above, it is evident that when a ``` ``` person accused or suspected of the commission of ``` ``` an offence punishable with imprisonment, which ``` ``` may extend to seven years or more or of an ``` ``` offence under Chapter XVI or XVII, appears or ``` ``` brought before the court, his release on bail ``` ``` shall be subject to the conditions as mentioned ``` ``` above. Therefore, in respect of the persons ``` ``` accused of the offences included in the category ``` ``` of the offences coming under Sub Section(3) of Section 437, the Court is bound to impose the ``` ``` conditions stipulated therein. The word used in ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 28 ``` Sub Section (3) of Section 437 as regards the imposition of conditions is ‘shall’, which indicates that the same is mandatory. In the light of the mandatory nature of the conditions, it is absolutely necessary that the accused executes a bond, undertaking to abide by the said conditions, for which the personal appearance of the petitioner is required. Therefore the first appearance of the petitioner, as far as the offences covered by Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. are concerned, is not a mere formality but a necessity to ensure that the accused agrees to abide by the conditions stipulated therein, by executing a bond in this regard. Though, exemption from personal ``` ``` appearance for the first appearance can be granted to the person accused of the aforesaid offences, it should be in exceptional circumstances, where extreme hardship is caused ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 29 ``` to the accused, or the accused is unable to appear before the court due to reasons beyond his control. ``` ``` 25.Now, coming to the facts of this case, the offences alleged against the petitioner include those under Sections 409,420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, which are punishable with imprisonment for seven years or more. In some of ``` ``` the cases, the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406 and 423, read with 120B of IPC. Even though the punishment for ``` ``` the said offences is imprisonment for a term ``` ``` lesser than seven years, those offences come ``` ``` under Chapter XVII of IPC, and hence for that ``` ``` reason, that would come under Sub-Section (3) of ``` ``` Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the rigour ``` ``` of the said provision applies to all the cases ``` ``` of the petitioner. Unless there are exceptional grounds, the exemption from personal appearance ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 30 ``` for the first appearance cannot be granted. As mentioned above, in the Bhaskar Industries case ``` ``` (supra), the reasons mentioned are due to the ``` ``` far distance at which the accused resides or carries on business or on account of physical or other goods reasons. ``` ``` 26. When considering whether any reasonable ``` ``` or exceptional circumstances exist, the reason mentioned in the application submitted by the petitioner is to be considered. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for 1[st] ``` ``` respondent, even according to him, the ``` ``` petitioner is the head of Syro Malabar Church ``` ``` spread all over the world, having a membership ``` ``` of 55 lakhs. He has supervisory administrative ``` ``` functions over 36 dioceses, of which four are ``` ``` out of India and 18 are outside Kerala. He has ``` ``` to attend meetings and perform duties as the ``` ``` President of KCBC. Since he is a member of the ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 31 ``` College of Cardinals, he also has to participate in meetings in Rome. Thus it can be seen that he is admittedly attending meetings worldwide as part of administrative functions. This would indicate that he is not under any physical difficulty, which prevents him from appearing before the court at least on one occasion to take bail and execute the bond, agreeing the conditions in Sub Section(3) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. The crucial aspect to note in this regard is that the petitioner ordinarily resides within the territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, where the cases are pending. It is reported that ``` ``` the distance between the place of the residence ``` ``` of the petitioner and the court is just about 3 Kms. Therefore, under any circumstances, it cannot be concluded that there exists exceptional circumstances which prevent the ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 32 ``` petitioner from attending the court in person, ``` ``` at least for the first time and executing bonds ``` ``` in tune with section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. ``` ``` 27.There is yet another aspect which makes ``` ``` the prayer sought in these Crl.M.Cs. ``` ``` unsustainable. As mentioned above, the accused ``` ``` is bound to appear before the court unless the ``` ``` court exempts him from personal appearance. ``` ``` Since exemption contemplated under Section 205 ``` ``` Cr.P.C, is an exception to the normal rule ``` ``` requiring the physical presence of the accused ``` ``` before the court, subject to the discretion of ``` ``` the court, it cannot be contended that the ``` ``` accused has a vested right to get an exemption. ``` ``` The only obligation on the part of the learned ``` ``` Magistrate is that he has to exercise the ``` ``` discretion judiciously. In this case, I have ``` ``` already found that no exceptional circumstances ``` ``` are in existence warranting an order exempting ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 33 ``` the petitioner from the 1[st]appearance. Therefore, I do not find any justification on the part of the petitioner in seeking an order directing the Magistrate to consider the application for exemption under section 205 without insisting on the physical presence of the petitioner. In my view, nothing precludes the learned Magistrate from insisting on the personal appearance of the petitioner before considering his application. It is also to be ``` ``` noted in this regard that the prayer in the petition submitted by the petitioner before the Magistrate is to exempt him from personal appearance throughout the trial and the said prayer can be considered by the learned Magistrate, even after the first appearance of ``` ``` the petitioner. So no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by appearing before the court and executing the bonds. ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 34 ``` 28. Moreover, granting an exemption to the petitioner for the first appearance in this case, would send a wrong message to the Society as well. According to the petitioner, he is a religious head required to carry out several functions in various capacities and seeks exemption on that ground. In my view, the position that he holds would not make him entitled to any special privileges when he is brought before a court of law as an accused. The statutory mandate is over and above all the ``` ``` superiority the accused possesses or claims to ``` ``` have, by virtue of his position. Irrespective of his position, he is just an accused before the court of law, who is not entitled to claim any special privilege and is required to face the ``` ``` proceedings just like any other citizen. The provisions of Cr.P.C does not distinguish between ordinary citizens and persons holding ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 35 ``` superior positions in their religious, political, social, or other institutions. Equality before the law, the laudable principle enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of ``` ``` India, is not confined in its application only in cases where one seeks to enforce his rights. It is equally applicable when a person is proceeded against for violating the law or for committing an offence, and no preferential treatment can be claimed by anyone for any reasonwhatsoever,unlessthestatute ``` ``` contemplates such privilege. As observed by the Honourable Supreme Court, in Lily Begum v. Joy Chandra Nagbanshi [(1994) 2 SCC 39], which is relied on by the learned Counsel for the 1[st] ``` ``` respondent, if such a privilege is given to the accused, people will lose their confidence in the administration of justice. ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 36 ``` 29.Thus, after considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the firm view that the prayers ``` ``` sought by the petitioner cannot be granted, and these Crl.M.Cs are devoid of any merit. Hence, I am not inclined to grant the relief sought. However, it is made clear that the observations made by this court in this order are only in respect of the prayer for exemption from the first appearance of the petitioner in person. Once the petitioner appears and is released on bail on executing bonds, the applications submitted by the petitioner under Section 205 ``` ``` Cr.P.C. are to be considered without any delay, by taking into account the fact that the ``` ``` physical presence of the petitioner may not be required on all posting dates. This is mainly ``` ``` because, the question of identity is not a matter of concern, and the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent conceded before this Court ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 37 ``` that he does not have any objection in granting exemption to the petitioner under Section 205 of ``` ``` Cr.P.C., once the petitioner appears before the court and takes bail. Since the proceedings pending before the Magistrate are instituted upon private complaint, the concession made by the 1[st] respondent is relevant and can be acted upon while deciding the said applications. The Crl.M.Cs are disposed of with the above observations. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` pkk Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 38 ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4196/2022` |`PETITIONER’S`|`ANNEXURES:`| |---|---| |`ANNEXURE A1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN`| ||`C.M.P.NO.1379/2022 DATED 21.06.2022 FILED`| ||`BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST`| ||`CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD`| |`ANNEXURE A2`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED`| ||`21.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.93/2022 ON THE FILE OF`| ||`JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,`| ||`KAKKANAD`| |`ANNEXURE A3`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED`| ||`21.06.2022`<br>`IN`<br>`C.M.P.NO.1379/2022`<br>`IN`| ||`C.C.NO.93/2022 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL`| ||`FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD`| Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 39 ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4198/2022` ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES: ``` ``` ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN C.M.P.NO.803/2022 DATED 12.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD ANNEXURE A2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 21.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.1886/2019 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD ANNEXURE A3CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 21.06.2022INC.M.P.NO.803/2022IN C.C.NO.1886/2019 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 40 ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4201/2022` |`PETITIONER’S`|`ANNEXURES:`| |---|---| |`ANNEXURE A1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN`| ||`C.M.P.NO.800/2022 DATED 12.04.2022 FILED BY`| ||`THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST`| ||`CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD`| |`ANNEXURE A2`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED`| ||`21.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.94/2020 ON THE FILE OF`| ||`JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,`| ||`KAKKANAD`| |`ANNEXURE A3`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED`| ||`21.06.2022`<br>`IN`<br>`C.M.P.NO.800/2022`<br>`IN`| ||`C.C.NO.94/2020 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL`| ||`FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD`| Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 41 ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4212/2022` |`PETITIONER’S`|`ANNEXURES:`| |---|---| |`ANNEXURE A1`|`TRUE`<br>`COPY`<br>`OF`<br>`THE`<br>`COMPLAINT`<br>`IN`| ||`C.C.NO.632/2019 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL`| ||`FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD`| ||`DATED 16.07.2018`| |`ANNEXURE A2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SPL.LEAVE TO`| ||`APPEAL (CRL.) NO.2849/2022 AND CONNECTED`| ||`CASES PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME`| ||`COURT OF INDIA DATED 01.04.2022`| |`ANNEXURE A3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN`| ||`C.M.P.NO.869/2022 DATED 12.04.2022 FILED BY`| ||`THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST`| ||`CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD`| |`ANNEXURE A4`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED`| ||`21.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.632/2019 ON THE FILE`| ||`OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,`| ||`KAKKANAD`| |`ANNEXURE A5`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED`| ||`21.06.2022`<br>`IN`<br>`C.M.P.NO.869/2022`<br>`IN`| ||`C.C.NO.632/2019 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL`| ||`FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD`| Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 42 ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4218/2022` ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN C.M.P.NO.798/2022 DATED 12.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 43 ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4226/2022` ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN C.M.P.NO.807/2022 DATED 12.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD ``` Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218 4226,4232 of 2022 44 ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4232/2022` ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN C.M.P.NO.794/2022 DATED 12.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD ```