Pastor V.K.James v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **W.P.(C) No.7957 OF 2020(T)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **PASTOR V.K.JAMES, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.V.A.KURIAN, PASTOR OF ASSEMBLIES OF GOD CHURCH, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678014.** **BY ADVS. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SMT.K.VIJINA SMT.JAEONA JAMES** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REP. BY THE HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**2**|**THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PALAKKAD-678001.**| |**3**|**THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| ||**TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN-678013.**| |**4**|**SAJEESH K.P.,**| ||**AGED 32 YEARS**| ||**S/O.PAPPAN, SHARON HOUSE, AKG NAGAR, KARINGARAPPULLY,**| ||**PALAKKAD, PIN-678551.**| |**5**|**KALIDASAN,**| ||**AGED 50 YEARS,**| ||**S/O.KRISHNAN, KALIYAMKUNNAM, KINASSERY,**| ||**PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678701.**| |**6**|**AMRUTHANAND,**| ||**AGED 27 YEARS**| ||**S/O.RAVEENDRAN, GRACE VILLA, AKG NAGAR,**| ||**KARINGARAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678551.**| **R4-6 BY ADV. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN R4-6 BY ADV. SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN R4-6 BY ADV. SRI.RAFEEK. V.K.** W.P.(C) No.7957 OF 2020(T) 2 **R4-6 BY ADV. SRI.U.M.HASSAN R4-6 BY ADV. SMT.P.PARVATHY R4-6 BY ADV. SMT.SURYA P SHAJI R4-6 BY ADV. SMT.AATHIRA SUNNY R4-6 BY ADV. SHRI.MANAS P HAMEED R4-6 BY ADV. SHRI.GAUTHAM MOHAN H.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI P.P.THAJUDHEEN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-11-2020, THE COURT ON 13-11-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.7957 OF 2020(T) 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is the Pastor of 'Assembly of God Church', English Church Road, Palakkad, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate Police protection to the life of the petitioner in conducting 'sunday services' in the Palakkad Town Assembly of God Church between 8.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. from any disruption of 'aradhana services' by respondents 4 to 6 and their men. Petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 to 3, namely the District Police Chief, Palakkad and the Circle Inspector of Police, Town South Police Station, Palakkad to act on Ext.P1 complaint dated 06.03.2020, filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. 2. On 13.03.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3 and this Court issued urgent notice by special messenger to respondents 4 to 6. This Court granted an interim order to the effect that the Police shall maintain law and order and ensure that no obstruction is caused to any religious services being conducted by the petitioner, in accordance with law. The said W.P.(C) No.7957 OF 2020(T) 4 interim order, which was extended on 19.03.2020 and 03.08.2020 is still in force. 3. On 08.07.2020, respondents 4 to 6 have filed counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. On 22.09.2020, the petitioner has filed replay affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 4 to 6. On 15.10.2020, the respondents 4 to 6 have filed I.A. No.2 of 2020 seeking an order to accept Ext.R4(e) and Ext.R4(f) as additional documents. 4. On 03.08.2020, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions as to whether the District Collector had given permission for 'Palakkad Town Assembly of God Church' to use the building in question as a place of worship. Thereafter, on 18.08.2020, this Court has made it clear that the interim order passed in this writ petition will not prevent respondents 4 to 6 from attending any 'sunday services', however, respondents 4 to 6 shall maintain peace and tranquility in the place of worship. The Police shall ensure that peaceful atmosphere is maintained in the church. 5. On 14.09.2020, when this writ petition came up for further consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner was W.P.(C) No.7957 OF 2020(T) 5 directed to get instructions as to whether the District Collector, Palakkad, has granted permission to use the building in question as a place of worship. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6. 7. Going by the averments in the writ petition, there are certain disputes between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6, who are the members of Palakkad Town Assembly of God Church. In the writ petition it is alleged that, on 18.12.2019, while 'sunday services' was going on, respondents 4 to 6 and their men, with an intention to disrupt the prayer meeting, created disruption. They misbehaved with the petitioner and forcefully took away two CCTV cameras and hard disks and pull down the shutters of the church and locked it. When the petitioner complained to the 2nd respondent, respondents 4 to 6 returned the CCTV cameras and hard disks and removed the lock. Recording the said fact, the complaint made by the petitioner was closed. Thereafter, on 16.02.2020, while 'sunday services' was about to begin, respondents 4 to 6 along with their men came to the church and W.P.(C) No.7957 OF 2020(T) 6 wrongfully restrained the petitioner and manhandled him. This was repeated on 01.03.2020, when respondents 4 to 6 and their men restrained the petitioner from even entering the church. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it is averred that the illegal acts of respondents 4 to 6 and their men had adversely affected the peaceful atmosphere in the church and that respondents 4 to 6 seems to be aggrieved by the fact that they have not been able to secure any interim orders in the civil suit filed by them against the church authorities for declaration and consequential injunction that they shall not be removed from the membership of the church and the enforcement of the rights attached with them, being members of the church. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 complaint on 06.03.2020 before the 2nd respondent with a copy to the 3rd respondent, which was acknowledged by respondents 2 to 3, vide Exts.P2 and P3 receipts. The document marked as Ext.P4 is a notice dated 18.11.2019, whereby the members of the church are informed about the appointment of Presbyter to manage the affairs of the church. Alleging inaction on the part of respondents 2 and 3 on Ext.P2 complaint, the petitioners have approached this Court in this writ petition, seeking the aforesaid reliefs. W.P.(C) No.7957 OF 2020(T) 7 8. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 to 6, it is alleged that the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition with unclean hands, suppressing material facts with the intention of misleading this Court. Relying on Ext.R4(a) statement of account for the period from 01.09.2018 to 12.12.2019, respondents 4 to 6 would contend that the petitioner, misusing his position as Pastor, misappropriated the church fund to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for his own personal use. When this was brought to light by respondents 4 to 6, in order to cover up misappropriation, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in the account of the church, on 24.09.2018, as evidenced by Ext.R4(b) statement of accounts. In order to cover up various misconducts of the petitioner, members of the church who questioned the same were illegally ousted. When one of the believers questioned the conduct of the petitioner, that person was attacked, who filed a complaint before the Police, based on which Ext.R4(c) FIR was registered on 16.02.2020, in Crime No.138 of 2020 of Town Police Station, Palakkad. When the petitioner tried to unlawfully oust respondents 4 to 6 from the church, they filed O.S. No.72 of 2020 before the Principal Munisiff’s Court, Palakkad against the petitioner herein W.P.(C) No.7957 OF 2020(T) 8 and others seeking prohibitory injunction and from unlawfully ousting them from the church. Along with the plaint they filed an application for temporary injunction prohibiting the petitioner herein and others, from restricting the rights of respondents 4 to 6 from continuing as members of the church and the Munsiff's Court granted an interim injunction on 10.02.2020, as evidenced by Ext.R4(d) case status of I.A.No.544 of 2020 in O.S.No.72 of 2020. Without disclosing the aforesaid facts, the petitioner approached this Court in this writ petition, with the sole intention to surpass the order of injunction granted by the Munsiff’s Court. 9. The petitioner has filed reply affidavit denying the allegations raised in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 to 6. In paragraph 4 of the reply affidavit, the petitioner would contend that the dispute raised in O.S.No.72 of 2020, relates to an incident alleged to have occurred on 16.02.2020, relating to the removal of a committee member, which has nothing to do with the misappropriation alleged against the petitioner. In O.S.No.72 of 2020, the respondents 4 to 6 sought for temporary injunction from being removed as committee members and from the control of the Sabha. Along with the reply affidavit the petitioner has placed on W.P.(C) No.7957 OF 2020(T) 9 record Ext.P5 order of the 1st Additional Munsiff’s Court, Palakkad in I.A. No.4430 of 2019 in O.S.No.629 of 2019 filed by Sabha Committee and another whereby the temporary injunction sought for was not granted, since the functioning of the committee was duly terminated after complying with the formalities as per bye-law. In paragraphs 5 of the reply affidavit, the petitioner would contend that the subject matter of this writ petition is noway related to the subject matter in O.S.No.72 of 2020 and the reliefs claimed in that suit do not relate to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, which are essentially for Police protection to conduct 'sunday services' peacefully in Palakkad Town Assembly of God Church, from wanton acts of respondents 4 to 6, that led to complaint being filed against them. The petitioner has also placed on record Ext.P6 relevant page of souvenir of Palakkad Assemblies of God Church in order to point out that the church is in existence for more than 8 decades. 10. Along with I.A. No.2 of 2020, respondents 4 to 6 have placed on record a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.72 of 2020 as Ext.R4(e), and a copy of the order of injunction granted by the Munsiff’s Court dated 10.02.2020 in I.A.No.544 of 2020 as Ext.R4(f). As evident from Exts.R4(e) and R4(f), respondents 4 to W.P.(C) No.7957 OF 2020(T) 10 6 have filed an interim application for temporary injunction restraining the petitioner herein, the Pastor of Assembly of God Church, Palakkad; the Presbyter appointed to manage the affairs of the Church; the South India Assemblies of God, Malabar District Council; and also the District Superintendent of Malabar District Council; expelling them from the membership of Palakkad Town Assembly of God Sabha and from exercising their rights as its members. In that interlocutory application, the Munsiff’s Court granted an ad interim injunction as prayed for by the 4th and 5th respondents herein (2nd and 3rd plaintiffs) against the defendants, until further orders. The ad interim injunction as prayed for by the rd st 3 respondent herein (1 plaintiff) is granted only against 2 to 4. 11. Ext.R4(f) order of interim injunction is one granted by the Principal Munsiff's Court on 10.10.2020, in O.S.No.72 of 2020. The petitioner in this writ petition is the 1[st] defendant in that suit, who was represented by a counsel. The 2[nd] defendant is the Section Presbyter appointed to manage the affairs of the Church. By the said order, the defendants 2 to 4, who were the Section Presbyter of Assembly of God Church; South India Assemblies of God, Malabar District Council; and the District Superintendent of Malabar W.P.(C) No.7957 OF 2020(T) 11 District Council are restrained from expelling respondents 4 and 5 from the membership of Palakkad Town Assembly of God Sabha and from exercising their rights as its members. 12. The petitioner herein, who is a party to O.S.No.72 of 2020 pending before the Principal Munsiff's Court, has filed this writ petition before this Court on 13.03.2020 with an averment that respondents 4 to 6 have not been able to secure any interim order in the civil suit filed by them against the church authorities for declaration and consequential injunction that they should not be removed from the membership of the Church and enforcement of rights attached, being members of the Church; by suppressing Ext.R4(f) interim injunction granted by the Munsiff's Court on 10.02.2020. The conduct of the petitioner in this regard has be deprecated in strongest terms and I do so. 13. The Kerala Police Act, 2011 is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the establishment, regulation, powers and duties of the Police Force in the State of Kerala and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Chapter II of the Act deals with duties and functions of Police. Section 3 of the Act deals with general duties of Police. As per Section 3, the Police, as a W.P.(C) No.7957 OF 2020(T) 12 service functioning category among the people as part of the administrative system shall, subject to the Constitution of India and the laws enacted thereunder, strive in accordance with the law, to ensure that all persons enjoy the freedoms and rights available under the law by ensuring peace and order, integrity of the nation, security of the State and protection of human rights. Section 4 of the Act deals with functions of Police. As per Section 4, the Police Officers shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, perform the functions enumerated in clauses (a) to (s) of Section 4. As per clause (a), the Police Officers shall enforce the law impartially; and as per clause (b), the Police Officers shall protect the life, liberty, property, human rights and dignity of all persons in accordance with the law. 14. Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police thus; "In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, well-trained and well-disciplined force or police whom it can trust, and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice. The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the W.P.(C) No.7957 OF 2020(T) 13 rules of right conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants." 15. In **Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary [(2014) 2 SCC 532]** the Apex Court held that, one of the responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the important duties the police has to perform. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the offender to the book. The Apex Court reiterated the said principle in **Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470]** . 16. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that regarding the incident that happened on 16.02.2020, a crime has already been registered as Crime No.138 of 2020 of Palakkad Town South Police Station. The Police filed Ext.R4(c) FIR before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Palakkad and the investigation is in progress. At present there is no law and order problems in the church. Respondents 4 to 6 have secured Ext.R4(f) interim order of injunction from the competent civil court, which is still in force. W.P.(C) No.7957 OF 2020(T) 14 In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3[rd] respondent Station House Officer to ensure that the law and order is maintained in the locality. In case of any threat to the law and order, at the instance of respondents 4 to 6 or their supporters, the petitioner shall make a complaint before the 3[rd] respondent Station House Officer, in which event, the said respondent shall take necessary action, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN** **JUDGE** AV/MIN/16/11 W.P.(C) No.7957 OF 2020(T) 15 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, MALABAR DISTRICT COUNCIL DATED 18.11.2019, DISBANDING THE CHURCH COMMITTEE AND APPOINTING THE PRESBYTER TO RUN THE AFFAIRS OF THE CHURCH.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/02/2020 I.A.NO.4430/2019 IN O.S.NO.625/2019 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF SOUVENIR OF THE PETITIONER CHURCH.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R4 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE CHURCH DATED 12.12.2019 REFLECTING THE MISAPPROPRIATION.** - **EXHIBIT R4 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF FEDERAL BANK A/C OF THE CHURCH** - **EXHIBIT R4 (C) TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 16.02.2020 IN CRIME NO.138/2020 OF PALAKKAD TOWN POLICE STATION REGISTERED AGAINST THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R4 (D) TRUE COPY OF THE CASE STATUS REFLECTING THE ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IN I.A. 544 OF 2020 IN O.S. NO.72/2020.** W.P.(C) No.7957 OF 2020(T) 16 |**EXHIBIT R4**|**(E)**|**TRUE COPY OF O.S. NO.72/2019 FILED BEFORE**| |---|---|---| |||**THE MUNSIFFS COURT, PALAKKAD DATED**| |||**16/02/2020**| |**EXHIBIT R4**|**(F)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.**| |||**NO.544/2020 IN OS.NO.72/2020 DATED**| |||**10/2/2020 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFFS COURT,**| |||**PALAKKAD**|