AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.—The matter is posted for being mentioned today,
The Criminal Original Petition has arisen in this way:
There is a C.S.I. Diocese in Kanyakumari, under whose control there are several Churches. The triennium election for the Kanyakumari Diocese
for the years 2000 to 2003 was scheduled to commence on 11th, 12th and 13th May of 2000. There were disputes with regard to lay -
representatives to Diocese Council election with respect to 32 Churches. Number of election petitions were filed and the parties approached the
High Court seeking redresses. Two such petitions were instituted in C.R.P. No. 1251 of 2000 and C.R.P. No. 1390 of 2000. In these petitions.
A. Raman, J. passed orders on 12.7.2000 to the effect that so far as the disputed elections to 32 Churches are concerned, the results of election
held on 11th, 12th and 13th May 2000 regarding the post of Secretary, Vice President and various posts shall be kept in abeyance. The learned
Judge passed orders to the following effect:
In the result, Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1390/2000 and 1251/2000 are allowed, setting aside the order passed by the Principal District
Munsif, Padmanabhapuram in I.A. No. 311/2000 in O.S. No. 123/2000, and the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Kanyakurai, in I.A.
No. 63/2000 in Tr.O.P. No. 67/2000 on 26.4.2000. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to cost. The Election Commission
constituted for the settlement of election disputes shall dispose of the Election Petitions pending before the same viz., all the 42 Election Petitions
relating to 32 Churches where from 93 lay- representatives of the Diocesan Council are to be elected, within three months of this Order. The
results of the Election held to the Diocesan Council for post of Secretary, Vice-president and various posts as on 11th, 12th and 13.5.2000 shall
be kept in abeyance only in so far as it relates to the 32 churches as mentioned above. The results of the other elections shall be declared. It is also
made clear that whoever who are aggrieved by the decision rendered or to be rendered by the Election Commission will be at liberty to Challenge
the same before the appropriate forum. Consequently, the connected CO Ps, will stand closed. No costs.
It transpired that there was an allegation that the Bishop and one Dharmaraj had announced the results which culminated in contempt of
proceedings. In the instant Criminal Original Petition, the Petitioner herein had stated as under:
...the respective contemnors also appeared before this Hon''ble Court and admitted their guilt of violation of the Order passed by this Hon''ble
Court.
The Petitioner in the instant Cri.O.P. No. 21147 of 2000, who is a practising advocate, is appointed as Correspondent of L.M.S. Girls Higher
Secondary School, Neyyoor, Kanyakumari District by the Executive Committe during 1997. He is still holding the post. Now, the results are kept
in abeyance by virtue of the Orders passed in C.R.P. No. s. 1251 and 1390 of 2000. The Petitioner had placed that certain parties are trying to
interfere with his carrying on his work as the Correspondent and therefore the Respondent herein, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Nagerocil,
Kanyakumari District should give protection to him in carrying on his work till the new office bearers assume charge.
The Petitioner had preferred this petition only against the State represented by the Superintendent of Police, Nagerocil. When this petition came
up for hearing on 21.11.2000, the counsel for the Petitioner drew my attention to Rule Nos. 10(1) and 10(2) of the Constitution of Rules and
Kanyakumari Diocese, 1993 and pointed out that till the new Office bearers take charge, the existing office bearers can continue. Rule 10(2)
recites as under:
(2)Continuity of Councils, etc.
Every council, board, committee and subcommittee and their officers shall continue to exist with all their usual powers until their successors are
constituted or appointed, notwithstanding that the new elections may perhaps not take place on the exact anniversary of the day when the former
members were elected.
However, a Church committee shall not continue to function for more than three months from the due date of election without the approval of the
Church Board.
The learned Public Prosecutor had no objection for affording protection to the Petitioner and accordingly, the petition was allowed.
Now, one Dharmaraj preferred Crl.M.P. No. 9215 of 2000 to implead him as a party to the proceedings. The learned Public Prosecutor has
no objection and Dharmaraj, Petitioner therein, was impleaded as the second Respondent in the instant Criminal Original Petition.
Mr. P. Peppin Fernando, learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent wanted to make some submission regarding the allegations of
contempt levelled against the Petitioner herein.
Now, the Petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 9215 of 2000 was made as the second Respondent. He was given an opportunity to make his
submissions. According to Mr. P. Peppin Femando, the learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent herein, the Petitioner herein has
committed fraud upon the court and had also misled the Court by making certain false allegations. According to the learned Counsel, though the
contempt proceedings were initiated against the second Respondent and the Bishop, they have not admitted their guilt or violation of the order
passed by this Court, that they have defended the contempt petition, but they were found guilty and convicted, as against which, they have
preferred appeals
The main grievance of the second Respondent is that the Petitioner had abused the process of law by making certain false allegations and
therefore, the Order passed in Crl. O.P. No. 21147 of 2000 should be set aside.
Heard all the Counsel appearing. Mr. P. Peppin Femando, the learned Counsel appearing for the Second Respondent, submitted that the
Petitioner herein, who happens to be a Senior Advocate, has made certain false allegations, which cannot be brushed aside lightly. The learned
Counsel vehemently contended that the majesty of the Court should be upheld and the Court should protect only the honest and sincere litigants. In
support of his contention, the learned Counsel cited the decision reported in Orissa State Financial Corporation and Another Vs. Hotel Jogendra, ,
w herein in a case relating to a civil dispute, the Apex Court had pointed out that the Court should protect only honest and sincere litigants, but no
indulgence would be shown to recalcitrant defaulter in repayment of the loan. Though the matter on hand is not of a civil nature involving any
adjustment of civil right between the parties, the view expressed by the Apex Court is that only honest and sincere litigants can be protected by the
Court.
In a later decision rendered in K.K. Modi Vs. K.N. Modi and Others, wherein the Supreme Court has defined what is abuse of process of
Court Their Lordships have referred to various earlier decisions and pointed out in paragraph 45 as under:
The Supreme Court Practice 1995 Published by Sweet & Maxwell in paragraph 18.19.33(page 344) explains the phrase abuses of the
process of the Court thus: This terms connotes the process of the Court must be used bona fide and properly and must not be abused The Court
will prevent improper use of its machinery and will in a proper case, summarily prevent its machinery from being used as a means of vexation and
oppression in the process of litigation....
The categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexation or an abuse of process are not closed but depend on all the relevant circumstances.
And for this purpose considerations of public policy and the interests of justice may be very material
In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had pointed
out that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court and he can be summarily thrown out at any state of the
litigation. Their Lordships have also proceeded to hold that fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking
unfair advantage of another, that it is a deception to gain by another''s loss, and that it is a cheating intended to get an advantage.
In Union of India v. r. Karthikai Rajan and Ors. (1999 3 L.W.471), my learned brother P. Shanmugam, J. has held that in cases of gross
injustice and patent violation of elementary principles of law. This Court will not hesitate to interfere with such orders.
In Rev Noble Gambeeran and Ors. v. Peter P. Ponnan (1999 1 L.W.300), where several suits were instituted against a Bishop and the
executive committee of C.S.I. Church, Vellore in various Courts seeking identical relict by various parties with a view to hassle and harass the
religious head and one such suit having been filed at a Court which has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, S.S. Subramani, J. pointed out that such
conduct would amount to abuse of process of Court and a person who indulged in abuse of process of law, can seek no relief from the Court.
Applying the principles laid down in the above said decisions cited supra to the instant case, let us analyse whether the Petitioner had
committed any abuse of process of law or cheated the court or whether he has misled the court. The Petitioner is admittedly a senior advocate
practising at Nagercoil. By virtue of his being a lawyer, he would be well equipped with legal provisions and situations. In this direction petition, he
stated that the respective contemners also appeared before this Hon''ble Court. From the typed set of papers containing the contempt proceedings
instituted it appears that the Bishop, and the second Respondent had not accepted the guilt, but they defended themselves. Ultimately, they were
convicted by K. Natarajan, J. in Contempt Application No. 488 of 2000 as against which the second Respondent herein have preferred O.A.
Nos. 18 and 19 of 2000. The Bishop has also filed Contempt Appeal in C.A. No. 20 and 21 of 2000. That being the case, it is quite clear that
what has stated in the affidavit is palpably false.
The question is whether the Petitioner had made an innocent error or committed the same with an intention to influence the mind of the Court.
Mr. Hameed Ismail, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it is the advocate''s office which prepared the direction petition and the
mistake has crept in the advocate''s office. I am not prepared to accept the reason given by Mr. Hammed Ismail, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, because these are matters which are within the knowledge of the Petitioner and the direction petition would have been preferred only at
the instance of and on the instruction of the Petitioner. The learned Counsel cannot sweep the error under the carpet by pleading that it was a
mistake committed by the advocate''s office. The mistake is not a trivial mistake, but it is a costly mistake which imputes certain culpability to the
second Respondent and the Bishop. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner herein had not chosen to file an affidavit in support of his direction
petition. It appears, the Petitioner with his legal knowledge had tried to camouflage the insult and insinuation, knowing fully well that it is false to
allege such plea only to create a sort of bias against the second Respondent and the Bishop and seek an order in his favour. It is pertinent to note
that till now, the Petitioner herein had not come forward with any affidavit tendering unconditional apology for his act.
I am satisfied that the plea of the Petitioner that the second Respondent and the Bishop admitted their guilt in the contempt proceedings, would
certainly amount to taking false plea in a court of law, that too the highest forum of Justice available in this State. Dishonesty is writ large in raising
such false pleas which would certainly amount to abuse of process of Court. Though I am not dealing with any contempt proceedings, I feel on any
account, made and any cost, the majesty of Justice should be maintained and the persons should not be allowed to raise a false plea and walk off
with that. The Petitioner is an advocate and that aggravates the situation. I hold that by virtue of making false plea, the Petitioner had lost protection
of the Court. Criminal Original Petition No. 21147 of 2000 shall stand dismissed.