Criminal Miscellaneous Case Nos. 3048 of 2021 and 3141 of 2021, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL** **MONDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1943** **CRL.MC NO. 3048 OF 2021** **CC 25/2020 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM /** ## **SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CYBER CRIME** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:** - **1 E.SAMUEL AGED 54 YEARS,S/O EBANEZAR SANNUAL, UNDENCODE, MAKKIN KARA VEEDU, ELLUVILA P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 504.** - **2 DR. J. BENNET ABRAHAM, AGED 61 YEARS,S/O JOHN WYCLIFF, DIRECTOR, DR.SMCSI MEDICAL COLLEGE, RESIDING AT PALLIVILA VEEDU, GANDHIPURAM, SREEKARYAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 017.** **BY ADVS.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) ARUN B. VARGHESE** **AISWARYA V.S.** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE:** - **1 D.MANO S/O V.DEVADASAN, SECRETARY, C.S.I CHURCH, KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT T.C 4/1520(3), KAVU ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **BY ADVS.R.T.PRADEEP M.BINDUDAS** **K.C.HARISH** **SR.PP - SRI. HRITHWIK C.S.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **07.03.2022, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3141/2021, THE COURT ON 14.03.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 2 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL** **MONDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1943** **CRL.MC NO. 3141 OF 2021** **CC 25/2020 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM /** **SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CYBER CRIME** ## **PETITIONERS/4TH ACCUSED:** **A.DHARMARAJ RASSALAM,** **AGED 64 YEARS,S/O.ALBERT, BISHOP C.S.I. SOUTH KERALA DIOCESE, RESIDING AT BISHOP'S HOUSE, L.M.S. COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.** **BY ADVS. S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) ARUN.B.VARGHESE AISWARYA V.S.** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE :** **1 D.MANO, AGED 59 YEARS,S/O.V.DEVADASAN, SECRETARY, C.S.I. CHURCH, KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT TC 4/1520(3), KAVU ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 003.** **2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **BY ADVS. R.T.PRADEEP M.BINDUDAS K.C.HARISH** **SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.HRITHWIK C.S.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2022, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3048/2021, THE COURT ON 14.03.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 3 ## **ORDER** These are Criminal Miscellaneous Cases filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash Annexure-A9 complaint and Annexure-A12 order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram in CMP 388/2018, by which the complaint filed by the 1[st] respondent was taken on file as C.C.25/2020 and all further proceedings initiated pursuant to the same against the petitioners. 2. Petitioners in Crl.M.C.3048/2021 are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said case and petitioner in Crl.M.C. 3141/2021 is the 4[th] accused. There are four accused in the CMP. By Annexure-A12 order dated 23.01.2020 the case was taken on file against the accused persons including the petitioners alleging offence under Sections 468, 406 and 120B of the IPC. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Magistrate. 3. The parties will hereinafter be referred in the position in the said criminal case. The first accused is the presbyter of Kuravankonam Church under the South Kerala Diocese, briefly stated as SKD, of the CSI Church. The second accused is the Financial Administrator of the SKD and the fourth accused is the Bishop of the SKD, Thiruvananthapuram. The Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 4 complainant/first respondent was the Secretary of the CSI Church, Kuravankonam parish Committee. He is aggrieved by the decision of the fourth respondent in suspending him and others from the membership of the local committee of the Kuravankonam parish, subject to enquiry. Annexure-A7 is the order of suspension. It is stated that he, along with others, had prepared a separate bye-law which is against the Constitution of the Church of South India and also handled money of the Church against the interests of the Church. Noticing such serious financial irregularity, four of them were suspended from holding any responsibility of the Church. It is made clear that, that order will not stand on them attending the holy sacrament and holy mass in the Church. Challenging Annexure-A7 order, the complainant and three others filed a suit as O.S.No.168/2018 before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, praying to pass a decree of declaration, declaring that the said order dated 10.01.2018 is null and void and to pass consequential injunctions against the defendants who are the SKD represented by its Bishop and the fourth accused. The suit was laid on 29.01.2018. On the following day itself, C.M.P. No. 388/2018 was preferred before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, after examining the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 5 respectively. By Annexure-A12 proceedings dated 23.01.2020, the case was taken on file and aggrieved by the same, petitioners have moved this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 4. I heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the first respondent and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor elaborately. 5. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, there is absolutely nothing that the petitioners have committed forgery and criminal breach of trust and also that they had committed criminal conspiracy. The defacto complainant and others had dared to prepare their own bye-law in Kuravankonam parish, which is against the Constitution of the Diocese as well as that of the CSI Church and thus they were suspended from the office bearer-ship of the Church. Aggrieved by the same they moved the civil court but so far, no interim order has been obtained and on the following day itself the complaint was preferred and it is very clear that it is a malafide act intended to trouble the Bishop and other office bearers of the Diocese. 6. The learned counsel took me through Annexures-A1 and A2 directions issued by the Church, which were intended to create financial discipline in the Church. Similarly, after the appointment of an Administrative Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 6 Committee for the SKD, the Treasurer is the Financial Administrator and therefore, instead of the Treasurer, the Financial Administrator should be an account holder of all accounts maintained by parishes, but that was not followed in Kuravankonam. Moreover, they also violated the positive directions issued by the Church for the purpose of paying the salary arrears of the presbyter. Thus, on the basis of Annexure-A3 minutes, the second accused had conducted an auditing and found serious irregularities, the Kuravankonam parish was directed to cure the irregularities and to pay the amounts which was not done and that was how Annexure-A6 communication was sent to the Branch Manager, incorporating the name of the Financial Administrator as one of the holders of the account. 7. According to the learned Senior counsel, the Bishop has general power of superintendence over the churches and it was when noticed that a separate bye-law was prepared by the complainant and others in Kuravankonam and moved in violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the CSI Church that action was taken against them. Moreover, they also did not comply the directions that the Treasurer or the Financial Administrator should be one of the holders of accounts maintained by the parishes. That was how a communication was sent by the fourth accused to the Manager of State Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 7 Bank of Travancore, Nanthancode branch, as evident by Annexure-A6, requesting to nominate the Financial Administrator as one of the signatories of the account held in the bank. The Kuravankonam parish had also failed to disburse amounts due to the presbyter, the first accused, and thus on the basis of Annexure-A6 communication and after incorporating the name of the second accused as well, an amount of Rs.1,08,379/- was withdrawn and paid to the first accused towards arrear salary which is in accordance with the decisions taken by the Finance Committee earlier. That act will not attract offences under criminal breach of trust or forgery, there is no criminal conspiracy committed by the accused persons and it was with malafide intention that the criminal proceedings were initiated after filing a suit for quashing the Annexure-A7 order. 8. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners also relied on the decisions reported in **Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another [2009 KHC 1009]** , **M/s. Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. and others [2006 KHC 1202]** , **Anil Khadkiwala v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another [2019 (4) KHC 180]** to support his contentions. 9. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the first Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 8 respondent, the Crl.M.Cs are not maintainable. Earlier the third accused had moved separate Crl.M.C. before this Court and after hearing counsel on both sides, when it was about to be dismissed, it was not pressed and was withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh Crl.M.C. That would work as issue estoppel. According to the learned counsel, the track record of the 4[th] accused Bishop is bad, there are 14 criminal cases registererd against him. According to him, in the said M.C. filed by the third accused, all documents except the copy of the plaint were produced and after realising that the Crl.M.C. was going to be dismissed, it was withdrawn and now they are prosecuting these matters on experimental basis. According to the learned counsel, the Bishop has absolutely no financial powers. He has no control over the finance of the Church for which he relied on clause 10 of Chapter V of the Constitution, where it is stated that the Bishop of the diocese shall have only a general oversight of the financial administration of the diocese, but shall not exercise any direct control over the finances. According to him, there are serious instances of irregularities committed by the accused persons and therefore, the Crl.M.Cs are liable to be dismissed. 10. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in **National Bank of** Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 9 **Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz and another [(2013) 2 SCC 488]** , **Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan and another [(2004) 4 SCC 432]** , **Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab and others [(2020) 3 SCC 317]** and **Alka Bapu Gund** . **v. Prakash Kanhaiyalal Kankaria and others [(2017) 11 SCC 108]** 11. It is the admitted case that the complainant was the Secretary of Kuravankonam parish of the South Kerala Diocese of the CSI Church. Similarly, accused No.1 was the presbyter of the parish, the second accused was the Treasurer, now the Financial Administrator of the Administrative Committee of the SKD and the fourth accused is its Bishop. The 1[st] respondent preferred a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, alleging that the accused persons, after hatching a criminal conspiracy, withdrew an amount of Rs.1,08,379/- from the account maintained by Kuravankonam parish committee in which the complainant was the Secretary. According to him, that account in the SBT, Nanthancode branch was being managed by the presbyter and himself and thereafter, by illegally incorporating the name of the second accused in the account, accused Nos.1 and 2 jointly withdrew that amount, after hatching conspiracy and forging records, and thereby criminal breach of trust and forgery were committed. 12. Before proceeding to analyse the correctness of the contentions Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 10 raised by the petitioners, it is appropriate to set out the circumstances that led to the initiation of the proceedings. According to the petitioners/accused, by Annexure-A1 decision of the finance committee of the Diocese dated 09.11.2013, it was resolved that joint accounts should be maintained in each parish in the name of the presbyter who is the President of the Edavaka and Secretary and Treasurer of the Diocese. That decision was communicated through Annexure-A2 circular. The Diocese also had decided that salary arrears of presbyters shall be paid by each parish, taking amount from their respective accounts. However, it is alleged that the complainant and his associates in Kuravankonam parish refused to obey the directions of the Church. Meanwhile, on the expiry of the term of the Diocesan Council, the Moderator appointed an Administrative Committee in which the 2[nd] accused was nominated as the Financial Administrator. By Annexure-A5 communication they were directed to pay various amounts to the accounts of the Diocese. They even failed to pay the arrear salary of the first accused and then, on getting evidence that the complainant and others had flouted the directions of the Diocese and also acted in violation of the Constitution of the Church, they were removed from the managing committee of the parish and that prompted them to institute the suit, Annexure-A8, before the Munsiff’s Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 11 Court, Thiruvananthapuram followed by preferring a private complaint alleging offence under Sections 120B, 212, 403, 406, 420, 465 and 471 read with 34 IPC. However, the court had taken cognizance only of offences under Sections 120B, 468 and 406 of the IPC. The contention of the complainant is that the CSI parish at Kuravankonam is a small church situated in a slum area; most of its members are poor. As per the Circular issued in 2013 they had opened the bank account in State Bank of Travancore, Nanthancode branch in the name of the President/Priest and the Accountant. As per the decision of the Church committee, a mass collection was made and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was collected and deposited in the account. While so, another circular was issued by the Diocese for starting an account with the treasurer of the Diocese and hence another account was also started by the Church in the same bank. According to him, Annexure-A6 communication issued by the fourth accused requesting to incorporate the Finance Administrator as a holder of the account is illegal. 13. It is the settled proposition of law that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at face value and accepted in its entirety, do not prima facie make out a case against the accused and where a criminal proceeding is manifestly instituted with malafide intention Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 12 or it is instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, the High Court is justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the same. Here the petitioners contend that the criminal proceedings were initiated against them with malicious intention, without good faith. After rushing through the materials and hearing the learned counsel on both sides, I am also convinced that there is considerable force in the contentions of the petitioners. 14. Firstly, Annexure-A1 minutes and A2 communication circulated among the parishes are applicable to all parishioners. The said decision was taken on 09.11.2013 and was circulated on 01.12.2013. From Annexure-A1 it is very patent that it is intended to achieve financial discipline and transparency in all finance deals in the parishes and other institutions in the Church. It is stated that on the special instructions of the Income Tax Department and Registrar of Companies, the CSI Synod, which is the apex body, instructed that bank accounts shall be opened by all the parishes with the noble intention of preventing concentration of money in the hands of individuals. Thus the Diocese decided to open accounts in the adjacent nationalised bank or scheduled bank in the joint account of the President/Secretary of the parish and also that of the Treasurer of the Diocese Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 13 and that amounts can be withdrawn under the signature of any of the two. As indicated earlier, it is a decision taken on 9/11/2013 communicated by way of Annexure-A2 circular dated 01.12.2013 which is applicable to all the parishes and institutions under the Diocese. It is not intended to any single parish or individual. 15. Annexure-A3 is copy of the minutes of the finance committee dated 20.03.2015 which authorises the Treasurer of the Diocese to inspect all accounts of the Churches for the purpose of defraying salary arrears of presbyters and priests during the period 2014-2015. This decision enabled the Treasurer to inspect all accounts of the parishes including building fund, poor fund etc. who had defaulted in making payment of salary arrears; if amounts are outstanding in any of the accounts, that should be utilised for paying the salary arrears of presbyters/priests. It is stated that if no amount is available with a particular Parish, it was resolved to render maximum assistance to them from the Diocese. Here also, it is worthy to be noted that nothing can be stated about Kuravankonam Parish in particular; it is directed against all parishes under the SKD. 16. Meanwhile, as indicated earlier, by Annexure-A4, on the expiry of the term of the Diocesan Council, the Moderator appointed an Administrative Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 14 Committee as a stopgap measure with the second accused as the Financial Administrator. He stands in the place of the Treasurer of the Diocese. 17. It seems that the Kuravankonam Parish committee in defiance of Annexures-A1 to A3 did not take care to pay the arrear salary of the first accused, who made a complaint to the Diocese and that was how AnnexureA5 communication was sent. It is also evident that they did not take care to incorporate the name of the Diocesan Treasurer/Finance Administrator as a party to their accounts and that made the fourth accused to issue a communication to the Nanthancode branch of the State Bank of Travancore, requesting to show the Finance Administrator of the Diocese as a cosignatory. It is evident that after Annexure-A6 communication accused Nos. 1 and 2 together, on the strength of Annexure-A6, withdrew the arrear salary of the first accused and that prompted the defacto complainant to prefer the complaint. Before that, the complainant and others had prepared a bye-law of their own and were found handling the common fund arbitrarily and that was how Annexure-A7 order was passed, by which the complainant and others were suspended from the office held by them and that was how Annexure-A8 suit was filed for quashing the proceedings. 18. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent vehemently contended Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 15 that the fourth accused has overstepped his powers in superseding an elected committee and nominating the 2[nd] respondent as a co-signatory of the accounts, therefore, the accused persons were acting illegally after committing criminal conspiracy etc. In fact, it is beyond the scope of these proceedings to say whether the fourth accused had acted exceeding the powers under the Constitution. The matter is sub judice before the Civil Court. All the same, clause 10 of Chapter V of the Constitution indicates that the Bishop, the fourth accused, has a general oversight over the financial administration of the diocese with a rider that he shall not exercise any direct control over the finances. From the documents produced by the petitioners it is not possible to hold that he had exercised any direct control over the finance of the Church. While sending Annexure-A6 communication to the Branch Manager he was only giving expression to Annexures-A1 and A2 decisions taken by the diocese as early in 2013. He had also reasons to believe that the complainant and others were dealing with the money of the parish without taking the diocese into confidence and that was how despite the specific directions the Treasurer of the diocese/Financial Administrator was not made a co signatory of the accounts. It may be true that the building fund was opened prior to Annexures A1 and A2 decisions. Still in the light of the Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 16 specific directions from the diocese, they should not have hesitated to add the Treasurer of the diocese as a co signatory, which direction was incorporated for the common good of the Church. 19. In the above setting, in no stretch of imagination it could be thought that the accused persons had committed acts of forgery and criminal breach of trust. The complaint, it appears, is the outcome of the hesitation of the 1[st] respondent to toe the line of discipline of the hierarchy of the Church which is necessary for running an institution especially a Church. After passing Annexure-A6 he along with his associates filed a suit before the Munsiff’s Court but could not obtain any interim order. On the following day itself a private complaint was preferred, which cannot be taken as an act in good faith. There are reasons to think that the criminal proceedings were initiated on experimental basis. As stated in the Constitution of the Church, discipline of the Church is of paramount importance. Going by Chapter XI of the Constitution, one of the conditions of membership in the CSI Church is that those who are claiming it are willing to abide by the rules and customs of the Church. All the members of the Church are expected to follow the Constitution adopted by the Synod. Even though this Court is not expected to analyse the correctness of the alleged act of the petitioners and others, that Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 17 they had framed their own bye-law in Kuravankonam Church, the mindset of the petitioners that they are not willing to obey the hierarchy of the Church is very much patent. It seems that he was dragging the proceedings to the criminal court without good faith. On the face of the records it does not seem that offence under Sections 120B, 406 and 468 of the IPC would lie against the petitioners. 20. On these considerations, entire proceedings initiated against them are quashed and the petitioners shall stand exonerated. Criminal M.Cs are allowed as above. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the legality and correctness of the Annexure-A6 communication of the 4[th] accused which is under challenge before the Civil Court. Sd/- **K.HARIPAL JUDGE** okb/8.3.22 //True copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 18 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3048/2021** |PETITIONER ANNEXURES|| |---|---| |Annexure A1|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MINUTES| ||OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD| ||ON 9.11.2013| |Annexure A2|TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 1.12.2013 OF THE| ||CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA SOUTH KERALA DIOCESE| |Annexure A3|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MINUTES| ||OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE HELD ON 20.3.2015| |Annexure A4|TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO M/SKD/AD/2016/01 DATED| ||13.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE MODERATOR OF CHURCH OF| ||SOUTH INDIA.| |Annexure A5|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.3.2017 ISSUED| ||BY THE 2ND PETITIONER| |Annexure A6|TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.4.2017 BY THE| ||BISHOP OF CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA SOUTH KERALA| ||DIOCESE| |Annexure A7|TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO SKD(B)B& C 116/783/18| ||DATED 10.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE BISHOP OF CHURCH| ||OF SOUTH INDIA SOUTH KERALA DIOCESE| |Annexure A8|TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 168/2018 FILED| ||BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH OTHER COMMITTEE| ||MEMBERS PENDING ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM| |Annexure A9|CERTIFIED COPY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN CMP NO.| ||388/2018 ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT| |Annexure A10|TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW1 IN CMP NO| ||388/2018 ON THE FILES OF CHIEF JUDICIAL| ||MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM| |Annexure A11|TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW3 IN CMP NO| ||388/2018 ON THE FILES OF CHIEF JUDICIAL| ||MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM| |Annexure A12|CERTIFIED COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 23.1.2020 IN| ||CMP NO 388/2018 PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL| ||MAGISTRATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM| Crl.M.Cs.3048 & 3141 of 2021 19 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3141/2021** |PETITIONER ANNEXURES|| |---|---| |Annexure A1|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MINUTES| ||OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON| ||09.11.2013.| |Annexure A2|TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 01.12.2013 OF THE| ||CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA SOUTH KERALA DIOCESE.| |Annexure A3|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MINUTES| ||OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE HELD ON 20.03.2015.| |Annexure A4|TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.M/SKD/AD/2016/01 DATED| ||13.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE MODERATOR OF CHURCH OF| ||SOUTH INDIA.| |Annexure A5|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.03.2017 ISSUED| ||BY THE FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR.| |Annexure A6|TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.04.2017 ISSUED BY| ||THE PETITIONER WHO IS THE BISHOP OF CSI SOUTH| ||KERALA DIOCESE.| |Annexure A7|TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.SKD(B) B& C 116/783/18| ||DATED 10.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN| ||WHO IS THE BISHOP OF CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA SOUTH| ||KERALA DIOCESE.| |Annexure A8|TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.168/2018 FILED| ||BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH OTHER COMMITTEE| ||MEMBERS PENDING ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.| |Annexure A9|TRUE COPY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN CMP| ||NO.388/2018 ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT.| |Annexure A10|TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW1 IN CMP| ||NO.388/2018 ON THE FILES OF CHIEF JUDICIAL| ||MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.| |Annexure A11|TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW3 IN CMP| ||NO.388/2018 ON THE FILES OF CHIEF JUDICIAL| ||MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.| |Annexure A12|TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 23.01.2020 IN CMP| ||NO.388/2018 PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL| ||MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.| |Annexure A13|TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.13.07.2021 IN CRL.| ||M.A.NO.1/2021 IN CRL.MC .3048/2021 OF THIS COURT|