1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST [SECTION]6 BEFORE: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION No.18062 OF [SECTION]6 (GM-RES) CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL PETITION No.2549 OF [SECTION]6 CRIMINAL PETITION No.2550 OF [SECTION]6 CRIMINAL PETITION No.2551 OF [SECTION]6 CRIMINAL PETITION No.2917 OF [SECTION]6 CRIMINAL PETITION No.4272 OF [SECTION]6 IN W.P.No.18062 OF [SECTION]6 BETWEEN: Ms. [ENTITY], Daughter of Late Shri [ENTITY], 46 years, (wrongly shown as 42 years In the impugned chargesheet), Occupation: Editor, "Mathu Kathe", Kannada Journal, Address: "Sanchalana", NO.505, 18th Main, Narayananagar, 1st Block, Kanakapura Main Road, Bangalore 560 062. 2 PETITIONER (By Shri [ENTITY], Senior Advocate for Shri [ENTITY], Advocate) AND: 1. The [ENTITY] by The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Vidhan Soudha, Bangalore City - 560 001. 2. The [ENTITY] by The Director General of police, Office of the DG, Police Head Quarters, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore City - 560 001. 3. The [ENTITY] by Yeshawanthapura Police Station, Yeshawanthapura, Bangalore City 560 022, Represented by Station House Officer. 4. The [ENTITY] by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Yeshawanthapura Police Station, Yeshawanthapura Sub-Division, Yeshawanthapura, Bangalore City 560 022. 5. The [ENTITY] by 3 The [ENTITY]. 6. Mr. [ENTITY], Son of [ENTITY], Aged about 53 years, Occupation: Procurator, M/s. St. Peter's Pontifical Seminary, 8th Main, Malleshwram West, Bangalore - 560 055. 7. The [ENTITY]. Represented by its Rector/Procurator. 8. Mr. [ENTITY], Son of Late Francis Moras, Aged bout 73 years, Occupation: Archbishop of Bangalore, Resident of Archbishop's House, No.75, Millers Road, Benson Town, Bangalore - 560 046. 9. Mr. [ENTITY], Father's name not known, Major, Occupation: Police Inspector and Investigating Officer, Yeshwanthapura Police Station, Bangalore City - 560 022. 4 10. Mr. [ENTITY], Father's name not known, Major, Occupation: Police Inspector and Investigation Officer, Yeshwanthapura Police station, Bangalore City - 560 022. 11. Mr. [ENTITY], Father's name not known, Major, Occupation: Assistant Commissioner Of Police, Yeshawanthapura Sub-Division, Bangalore City - 560 020. 12. Mr. [ENTITY], Occupation: Police Inspector, Central Crime Branch, Murder and HBT Wing, N.T.Pet, Bangalore City - 560 024. 13. Mr. [ENTITY], Father's name not known, Aged major, Occupation: Deputy Commissioner of Police (Retired), Advisor to the Police Commissioner Of Bangalore, C/o. Office of The Police Commissioner, Infantry Road, Bangalore - 560 080. 5 [respondent Nos.10,11 and 13 deleted Vide court order dated 4.8.[SECTION]6] 14. Mr. [ENTITY], Father's name not known, Major, Occupation: Former Director of Prosecution, for the [ENTITY], Presently the Special Public Prosecutor in respect of Crime No.157/[SECTION]3, Yeshawanthapura Police Station, Bangalore. Residing at Apartment No.204, 2nd Floor, BG Residency, No.325, 6th Main Road, BCC Extension, Chandra Layout, Bangalore - 560 040. [respondent No.14 deleted Vide court order dated 6.6.[SECTION]6] RESPONDENTS (By Shri [ENTITY], State Public Prosecutor for Smt. [ENTITY] Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 5; Shri [ENTITY], Advocate for RespondentNo.6; Smt. [ENTITY], Advocate for Respondent Nos.7 and 8; Respondent Nos. 9 and 12 served; Vide court order dated 4.8.[SECTION]6 Respondent Nos.10, 11 and 13 deleted; Vide Court order dated 6.6.[SECTION]6 respondent No.14 deleted) 6 This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with [SECTION] of [ACT], praying to quash Annexure-A Charge Sheet dated 17.6.[SECTION]4 and Annexure- B Additional Charge Sheet dated 26.10.[SECTION]5 filed under [SECTION] of Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of Crime No.157/[SECTION]3 of Yeshwanthapura Police Station, Bangalore and the entire gamut of investigation that has gone into the said Crime No.157/[SECTION]3 for the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], read with Section [SECTION] of [ACT] wherein in petitioner herein is shown as accused No.11 (in the additional Charge Sheet dated 26.10.[SECTION]5) and etc; IN CRL.P.No.2549 OF [SECTION]6 BETWEEN: Fr. [ENTITY], Son of [ENTITY], Aged 41 years, Parish Priest, Sacred Heart Church, Silvepura, Bengaluru - 560 090. PETITIONER (By Shri [ENTITY], Advocate) AND: 1. [ENTITY] by Yeshwanthapur Police Station, Represented by Ld. Special Public Prosecutor, Bangalore - 560 022. 7 2. [ENTITY], Son of [ENTITY], Aged about 53 years, St. Peters Pontifical Seminary, 8th Main, Malleshwaram West, Bangalore - 560 055. RESPONDENTS (By Shri [ENTITY], Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1; Shri [ENTITY], Advocate for Respondent No.2) This Criminal Petition filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT], praying to quash the Chargesheet and consequently the proceedings in Crime No.157/[SECTION]3 of Yeshwanthpur Police Station, Bangalore City, now pending in C.C.No.27574/[SECTION]5 on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION] [SECTION] of [ACT] in respect of this petition is annexed here with vide Annexure-C. IN CRL.P.No.2550 OF [SECTION]6 BETWEEN: Fr. [ENTITY], Son of [ENTITY], Aged 68 years, Parish Priest, Kristha Karunalaya Church, Kanakapura Main Road, Jaraganahalli, Chunchaghatta Cross, J.P.Nagar Post, Bengaluru - 560 076. PETITIONER 8 (By Shri [ENTITY], Advocate) AND: 1. [ENTITY] by Yeshwanthapur Police Station, Represented by Ld. Special Public Prosecutor, Bangalore - 560 022. 2. [ENTITY], Son of [ENTITY], Aged about 53 years, St. Peters Pontifical Seminary, 8th Main, Malleshwaram West, Bangalore - 560 055. RESPONDENTS (By Shri [ENTITY], Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1; Shri [ENTITY], Advocate for Respondent No.2) This Criminal Petition filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT], praying to quash the Chargesheet and consequently the proceedings in Crime No.157/[SECTION]3 of Yeshwanthpur Police Station, Bangalore City, now pending in C.C.No.27574/[SECTION]5 on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION] [SECTION] of [ACT] in respect of this petition is annexed here with vide Annexure-C. IN CRL.P.No.2551 OF [SECTION]6 BETWEEN: 9 [ENTITY], Son of [ENTITY], Aged about 52 years, Residing at No.158, 2nd Main, 3rd Cross, Near Bata Showroom, Chamarajapet, Bangalore - 560 018. PETITIONER (By Shri [ENTITY], Advocate) AND: 1. [ENTITY] by Yeshwanthapur Police, Bangalore - 560 022. Represented by Ld. Special Public Prosecutor. 2. Sri. [ENTITY], Son of [ENTITY], Aged about 53 years, St. Peters Pontifical Seminary, No.61, 8th Main, Malleshwaram West, Bangalore - 560 055. RESPONDENTS (By Shri [ENTITY], Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1; Shri [ENTITY], Advocate for Respondent No.2) This Criminal Petition filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT], praying to quash the entire proceedings C.C.No.27574/[SECTION]5 on the file of XXIV Additional 10 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City which is arising out of Crime No.157/[SECTION]3 of Yashavanthapura Police Station, Bangalore City for offences [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] of [ACT]. As an abuse of process of law vide Annexure-B. IN CRL.P.No.2917 OF [SECTION]6 BETWEEN: [ENTITY], Son of [ENTITY], Aged about 68 years, Resident of No.68, 2nd Main, 5th Cross, Deepanjalinagar, Mysore Road, Bengaluru - 560 026. PETITIONER (By Shri [ENTITY], Advocate) AND: 1. [ENTITY] by Yeshwanthapur Police Station, Represented by Ld. Special Public Prosecutor, Bangalore - 560 022. 2. [ENTITY], Son of [ENTITY], Aged about 53 years, No.61, St. Peters Pontifical Seminary, 8th Main, Malleshwaram West, Bangalore - 560 055, 11 Bengaluru City. RESPONDENTS (By Shri [ENTITY], Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1; Shri [ENTITY], Advocate for Respondent No.2) This Criminal Petition filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT], praying to quash the Chargesheet and consequently the order of taking cognizance and further the proceedings in Crime No.157/[SECTION]3 of Yeshwanthpur Police Station, Bangalore City, now pending in C.C.No.27574/[SECTION]5 on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION] [SECTION] of [ACT], as far as the petitioner is concerned. IN CRL.P.No.4272 OF [SECTION]6 BETWEEN: Sri. [ENTITY], Son of Late Innasappa, Aged about 86 years, Residing at Clergy Home, Archbishop's House Campus, No.75, Millers Road, Bangalore - 560 046. PETITIONER (By Shri [ENTITY], Advocate) AND: 1. [ENTITY] by Yeshwanthapur Police Station, 12 Represented by Ld. Special Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru - 560 022. 2. Sri. [ENTITY], Son of [ENTITY], Aged about 56 years, No.61, St. Peters Pontifical Seminary, 8th Main, Malleshwaram West (PO), Bengaluru - 560 055, RESPONDENTS (By Shri [ENTITY], Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1; Shri [ENTITY], Advocate for Respondent No.2) This Criminal Petition filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT], praying to quash additional Chargesheet dated 26.10.[SECTION]5 filed under [SECTION] of Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of Crime No.157/[SECTION]3 of Yeshwanthpur Police Station, Bangalore and consequently the proceedings C.C.No.27574/[SECTION]5 presently pending on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION] [SECTION] of [ACT], in respect of the petitioner herein. These Petitions having been heard and reserved on 19.8.[SECTION]6 and coming on for pronouncement of Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:- 13 ORDER
These petitions are heard and disposed of together as the petitioners are arrayed as the accused in the same criminal case.
2. The facts and circumstances leading up to these petitions being filed are said to be as follows.
A complaint is said to have been lodged by one [ENTITY] on 1.4.[SECTION]3, before the Yeshwanthpur Police Station about the alleged murder of one Father. [ENTITY] J., who was said to be the Rector of the St. Peter's Pontifical Seminary, situate within the jurisdiction of the said Police station. It was stated that the complainant, the deceased and one Father [ENTITY] had supper at the Seminary and had remained together between 7.30PM and 9 PM. Thereafter, they are said to have retired to their respective rooms for the night. It was said that at about 2.30 AM, the complainant had heard loud screams outside and there was also someone at his door trying to break open the same. The complainant did not choose to open the door or investigate, as he put down the commotion to miscreants having gained entry into the premises and he was surprised that they were seeking to extort money. It was only at 5 AM, he ventured to come outside to find that the door to his office chambers had been damaged and he is also said to have noticed blood stains outside his office and also in front of the staff room which was adjacent and on the tarred pathway. Once inside the room, he is said to have seen the dead body of Fr. [ENTITY] lying in a semi-nude state, with blood stains. He also found on entering the Rector's office chamber, that a cupboard and a safe locker had been broken open and ransacked. Hence the complaint of what was apparently a murder and robbery.
On the basis of the complaint, a case in Crime no.157/[SECTION]3 was said to have been registered for offences punishable under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] (Hereinafter referred to as the '[ACT]', for brevity). It is said that accused nos.1 to 5 were implicated after investigation and on the basis of oral statements of some of the witnesses. Accused nos.1 and 2 were said to have been arrested on 21.3.[SECTION]4 and accused no.3 on 20.3.[SECTION]4. Accused nos.4 and 5 are said to be absconding.
It is stated that there was an ongoing agitation by several Kannada [ENTITY]ian activists seeking primacy for Kannada [ENTITY]ians in the Catholic Churches in Karnataka and in particular, there was a demand to make the St. Peter's Seminary, a Kannada institution. And that the membership of non-Kannada linguistic groups in the Catholic Churches in Karnataka to be kept to a minimum. In that background, the deceased, being a non- Kannadiga and believed to be an adversary of the Kannada [ENTITY]ian activists, it was sought to be theorized that it was the said group which had masterminded and engineered the murder. It is claimed that this theory was strongly projected by the non- Kannada [ENTITY]ian members of the congregations, mainly Malayalam, Tamil and Konkani speaking [ENTITY]ians. It was alleged that it included such important persons, as [ENTITY], an erstwhile minister of the present Government in Karnataka, the Archbishop of Bangalore - [ENTITY] and a retired Deputy Commissioner of Police, - [ENTITY], among others.
A charge sheet was said to have been filed against accused nos.1 to 5 as on 17.6.[SECTION]4, for offences punishable under Sections [SECTION] [ACT]. Cognizance was said to have been taken on the said Charge Sheet and a case was registered in SC 1439/[SECTION]4, on committal to the Court of Sessions.
It was alleged in the charge sheet that accused nos.1 to 5 had walked into the St.Peter's Pontifical Seminary at about 11 PM on 31.3.[SECTION]3 and the Security guard at the gate was sent away to have a drink by the accused and that the guard had remained absent till about 2 AM on 1.4.[SECTION]3, when the murder is said to have taken place.
As it was the firm belief of the present petitioner and others, who supported the Kannada [ENTITY]ian group, that the accused had been unfairly and without any basis implicated, are said to have embarked on the task of unveiling the truth and to save the accused no.1 to 5 from false prosecution, by taking recourse to all legal means available, including campaigns, meetings and writings. It is claimed that they drew support from various quarters and their agitation for fair play and justice is said to have brought pressure on the government and the Church itself. The Archbishop himself is said to have threatened Fr. [ENTITY] that he would be defrocked if he continued with the said agitations.
It is alleged that at the instance of respondents no.13 and 14 in WP 18062/[SECTION]6, the police officers, arrayed as respondents no.9 to 12, are said to have brought unrelenting pressure on the petitioners herein and others by visiting them and also calling upon them to attend enquiry sessions and seeking to recover documents and alleged incriminating material from the petitioners. This, it is claimed, only further strengthened their resolve to fight for the freedom of the accused and they are said to have intensified their agitation. This circumstance, it is said, led to the police filing an additional charge sheet dated 26.10.[SECTION]5, on 24.11.[SECTION]5, naming these petitioners as accused no.6 to 12 , for the same offences as alleged against Accused no. 1 to 5. It is that which is under challenge in these petitions. Accused no. 8 is said to have died recently.
3. The learned Senior Advocate, Shri [ENTITY], appearing for the counsel for the petitioner in WP 18062/[SECTION]6, would contend that there is a gross misuse of law in the prosecution seeking to file an additional charge sheet after nearly three years of the incident seeking to implicate the petitioner and others. [SECTION] of the [ACT] (Hereinafter referred to as the '[ACT]', for brevity), does not enable the investigating agency to implicate persons at its whim and fancy at indefinite points of time.
It is pointed out that the additional charge sheet is filed on the basis of alleged material that was available even prior to filing of the original charge sheet and therefore, it is evident that the additional charge sheet is only to stifle the petitioner and others from speaking out against the injustice being caused to accused no. 1 to 5 .
It is contended that the additional charge sheet is clearly engineered to prevent the petitioners from carrying on their legitimate campaign against the powers that be in the Church, by targeting the Kannada [ENTITY]ian fraternity, of whom the petitioners are identified as their unnamed leaders, is evident from the undue attention that has been bestowed on the petitioners by the investigating agency apparently at the behest of the non- Kannada groups, including the concerned respondents.
It is sought to be highlighted that the additional charge sheet does not disclose any basis warranting the same as it is based on material that was available at the time of filing the original charge sheet.
The conduct of the complainant is particularly questioned. Shri [ENTITY] would point out that after the complainant, who was admittedly in the next room where the deceased was said to have been murdered and when he was woken up by the commotion of loud screams and his room door being allegedly sought to be broken open, the fact that he had not chosen to alert the police or seek help, when he had access to five telephones in his room, is inexplicable. He was one of the last persons to see the deceased alive and also the first to discover his dead body. He also stood to gain by the death of the victim, as he was likely to be the next Rector of the Seminary, but he has been presumed to be innocent in spite of his odd response to the incident, which is highly suspicious and would possibly make him, along with his accomplices, the perpetrator of the crime.
It is hence emphasized that there is no material to implicate the petitioners either in the main charge sheet or the additional charge sheet, indicating their direct or indirect participation in the perpetration of the alleged crime.
4. Shri [ENTITY], counsel appearing for accused no.12 would contend that the only allegation found against the said accused is to the effect that he had participated at a procession and rally along with others protesting against oppression by outsider [ENTITY]ian elements who were dominating over and crushing the local Kannada [ENTITY]ian populace of the Church. Therefore, it is highly imaginative to have implicated the said accused as being involved in the commission of any crime, in the absence of any incriminating material.
5. Shri [ENTITY], Counsel appearing for accused no. 7 would contend that a case of circumstantial evidence is sought to be made out against the petitioner, as if on an after thought. The alleged motive attributed to the petitioner does not even raise a flicker of suspicion. The petitioner was definitely a part of a large group of individuals espousing a cause for over a decade and a half. The demands were to have a separate Seminary for the Kannada speaking [ENTITY]ians within the premises of the St.Peter's Pontifical Seminary among other demands. The ways and means adopted were above board and legally acceptable. The agitation had drawn widespread support from other organizations as well. The involvement of the petitioner in the said movement could not be linked to the murder. The post of Rector held by the deceased did not take within its fold the reigns of power of the Seminary. Nor did he hold any power over the properties of the Seminary. The only power vested in the office was of caring for the discipline of trainees who came to the Seminary, their education and the day to day care and maintenance of the Seminary. The death of the Rector in no way has advanced the objective of the continued agitation of the Kannada speaking [ENTITY]ians of the Church. They are only projected in a poorer light and the accusation against the petitioner is a case in point. It is pointed out that there is not much variance in the contents of the main charge sheet and the additional charge sheet, implicating the petitioner and others. In the absence of any incriminating material and suspicion alone being the criteria to allege a motive cannot form the substance of a serious accusation of murder, and hence seeks quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner.
6. The State has opposed the petitions and has contended that the Sessions Court has framed charges and recorded the pleas of Accused no.1 to 3, as on 6.4.[SECTION]6. The date for the trial was set on 23.8.[SECTION]6.
That after the first charge sheet was filed on 17.6.[SECTION]4, investigation was continued and a further report was submitted against accused nos.6 to 12, as contemplated under [SECTION] of the [ACT], as on 24.11.[SECTION]5. And that the same is pending in case no.CC 27574/[SECTION]5. The proceedings had been stayed by this court on 6.4.[SECTION]6.
The statement of objections goes on to narrate the several incidents where there were instances of the petitioners having participated in agitations and other incidents of having created disturbances, to highlight certain demands and grievances and in the course of which, utterances made of seeking vengeance against the deceased victim, who had been characterized as an opponent to their cause, all of which was supported by statements of witnesses to such incidents. It is thus contended that there was abundant material to indicate that the petitioners were instrumental in having committed the murder of the deceased.
It is stated that from the call details of the cell phones of the said accused no.6 to 12, it was evident that they were in constant touch with each other. This according to the prosecution is evidence of their active machination to commit the murder of the deceased.
It is claimed that the petitioners were found to be associated with the following associations, namely, the Karnataka Kannada [ENTITY]ian Dharma [ENTITY] (KKCDGB), the [ENTITY] Catholic [ENTITY]ian Kannada Sangha (AKCCKS) and the Karnataka Catholic [ENTITY]ian Kannada Sangha (KCCKS), which was evident from documents said to have been seized during the course of investigation. That accused no.11 was the editor of a Kannada magazine known as 'Maathu Kathe' , which is paper that is a staunch supporter of the petitioners. And that accused no.12 was an office bearer of the [ENTITY]. It is alleged that accused no.7 to 9 had taken part in meetings at which it was resolved that they would strive to take over the St. Peter's Seminary. And in this regard had drawn the support of accused no.10 and 12, who were said to be the office bearers of the above said organizations.
The following incidents are highlighted to demonstrate that the said accused no. 6 to 12 had a definite design in achieving their goal and since the deceased was an impediment, he had been brutally murdered at their instance and active conspiracy.
a) On 17.2.2000, at about 10.30a.m., the members of KKCDGB led by accused no.2 Father [ENTITY], accused no.7, Father [ENTITY] and the members of AKKCCS led by accused no.10 [ENTITY], accused no.11 [ENTITY] and others, forcibly entered the premises of St.Peter's Pontifical Seminary and pounded violently on the doors of the auditorium where a meeting of Board of Bishops was in progress. The reason was to disrupt the meeting and to press for their demands to convert the premises of St.Peter's Pontifical Seminary into a Seminary exclusively for Kannada speaking [ENTITY]ians. The pounding on the door of the auditorium was so violent and forceful that it appeared to the delegates that the door might break. Fearing this, the doors of the auditorium were opened. Immediately, the intruders are said to have barged into the meeting hall and started shouting slogans and stalled the meeting for about two hours.
Accused no.7 Father [ENTITY] was extremely violent and he is said to have rushed to assault the then Archbishop, Most Rev.[ENTITY]. But, the then Rector and now the Bishop of Mysore Most. Rev.Dr.[ENTITY] is said to have prevented accused no.7 Father [ENTITY] from doing that act and rescued the Archbishop. Their behaviour that day has been described as resembling those of "hired Goondas" in a civil plaint filed by the deceased, Father [ENTITY] in 2000.
b) On 29.6.2000, which was the Seminary day and was also the Golden Jubilee Year of the priesthood of Father [ENTITY], an iconic French Priest, who is said to have taught at the Seminary. The staff members and students had assembled in the Chapel of the Seminary to attend the Holy Mass scheduled to be held at 11.15AM. At about 10.30AM, accused no.2 Father [ENTITY], accused no.7 Father [ENTITY], Accused no.8, Father [ENTITY] (now dead) and other members of the AKKCCS arrived there and demanded that they, as per the Seminary practices, be allowed to read out a memorandum during the Holy Mass which was not permitted. Despite the pleadings by the students and other priests, Accused no.2, Father [ENTITY] and his associates went ahead with the reading of the memorandum in the chapel. Their violent conduct was completely unbecoming of Roman Catholic Priest. It not only hurt the sentiments of the teaching staff and the students, but also defied the sanctity of the chapel in the words of the murdered Rector, Father [ENTITY].
c) Following these incidents of violence and as per the instructions of the then Archbishop, Most Rev.[ENTITY], the deceased Father [ENTITY], in his capacity as the then Procurator of the St.Peter's Pontifical Seminary, is said to have filed a civil suit in OS 5183/2000 requesting the City Civil Court to grant injunction against Accused no.2 Father [ENTITY] and his associate priests namely, accused no.7 Father [ENTITY], late Father Stany Baptist, accused no.8 Father [ENTITY] (now dead), Father [ENTITY], Father [ENTITY], Father [ENTITY], Father [ENTITY] and all members of the "Karnataka Kannada Catholic Priests Conference" and represented by its Vice-President, accused no.7 Father [ENTITY], restraining them in any manner from interfering in the activities, affairs and functioning of the Seminary. This court is said to have ordered status-quo. The order of status-quo remained in force from 3.8.2000 to 14.10.2004. Through this order, the aforesaid persons including accused no.2 Father [ENTITY], accused no.7 Father [ENTITY], Accused no.8 Father [ENTITY], Father [ENTITY], Father [ENTITY], Father [ENTITY], Father [ENTITY] were kept away from the premises of the Seminary. The said suit filed by the deceased Father [ENTITY] against accused no.2, Father [ENTITY] and others created great anger and resentment against the deceased.
d) Subsequently, at periodical intervals, accused no.2 Father [ENTITY], accused no.7 Father [ENTITY], accused no.8 Father [ENTITY] (now dead), Father [ENTITY] and their associates visited the office of the deceased Rector Father [ENTITY], and threatened him saying that they would wreak vengeance on him for having involved them in litigation.
e) During October [SECTION]0, a group led by accused no.1- [ENTITY], General Secretary of AKKCCS and another associates visited the Seminary and met the deceased Father [ENTITY] and demanded to permit them to hoist a "Kannada flag", in front of the Seminary on 1st November [SECTION]0. They also submitted a petition in this regard. Similarly, the group led by accused no.2 Father [ENTITY], accused no.7 [ENTITY], accused no.8 Father [ENTITY], Father [ENTITY], Father [ENTITY] and other members of the KKCDGB visited deceased Father [ENTITY] in the Seminary and demanded to permit them to hoist Kannada flag in front of the Seminary. The deceased Father [ENTITY] told them that he would discuss the matter with the Staff Council of the Seminary and also with the Archbishop and inform them about the decision. Accused no.10 [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] and two others are said to have come and met the deceased Father [ENTITY] expressing their firm decision to hoist the Kannada flag.
f) On 31.10.[SECTION]0, a big group led by accused no.2 Father [ENTITY], accused no.10 [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and other members of the AKKCCS entered into the premises of St.Peter's Pontifical Seminary, and forcibly erected a flag hole. Accused no.2 Father [ENTITY] hoisted a Kannada flag without the permission of the then Rector, the deceased Father [ENTITY]. Some of the staff members of the Seminary requested the deceased Father [ENTITY] to intervene and to stop the depredations of the intruders. Father [ENTITY] openly expressed his helplessness and further replied to them that he was mortally afraid of accused no.2 Father [ENTITY] and his associates. In his own words, "If I go and stop them my blood will be shed". These very words were heard by several members of the Seminary, who met him on that day. Subsequently, the Seminary authorities started hoisting the Kannada flag on their own on 1st November every year.
Reliance is placed on the statements of CW-100 and CW- 117, to the effect that they were told by the deceased on several occasions that the members of the above mentioned organizations had expressed that he was a hurdle in their path to achieving their goals and that he feared for his life. And he had also said to have mentioned that since he had filed a civil suit against several of the accused, on the instructions of the Archbishop, on behalf of the Seminary restraining them from interfering with its affairs, it had further incensed the said accused persons and their hatred towards him was palpable.
It is further contended that the accused were hopeful of their sympathiser, one Fr. [ENTITY], a member of the teaching faculty at the Seminary and also a member of the KKCDGB, mentioned above would be nominated as the Rector, in the place of the deceased. But since the deceased had been again re- nominated for a further period from [SECTION]2- [SECTION]5, the accused could not stomach the same and were waiting for an opportunity to eliminate the deceased from the scene.
It is further alleged that the statements of CW- 120, CW- 121 and 122, disclosed that accused no.12 had held meetings with the other accused and had made representations to the higher echelons of the Church, which clearly demonstrated their close association and common intention and particularly the mens rea.
It is pointed out that when there was an important meeting of the Board of Bishops, an august body of the Church, the accused had distributed hand bills proposing to disturb the conclave and in this regard, the deceased had approached the police to provide protection against the accused from disturbing the meeting, which had again angered the accused against the deceased.
It is claimed that just two days prior to the commission of murder, accused no.7 to 12 had participated at a massive rally and had made speeches denigrating the non- Kannada members of the Church and are said to have quoted from the Holy Bible, this ominous sentence: 'It is better that, one man dies for the people than that the whole nation perishes.' This was an utterance by a Jewish high priest with reference to [ENTITY], who was perceived then as a threat to their domain and was said to be a justification for the Jews killing [ENTITY].
It is further claimed that the statements of CW- 126, CW- 127 to CW -130 would reveal that accused no.6, a Parish priest was a close friend of accused no.1 and 2 and that they were constantly visiting and staying with him and as accused no.6 was an active member of the KKCDGB, he had accommodated accused no.7, 8 , 2 and others to hold meetings at his residence to chart out their plan to carry out their long term plans apart from eliminating the deceased.
It is contended that the large number of criminal cases instituted against many of the accused persons over the years, is a further testimony to their certain involvement in the commission of the murder of the deceased victim.
7. On a consideration of the above contentions and from an examination of the material on record, particularly, the charge sheets, namely, the Charge sheet filed as on 17.6.[SECTION]4 , which is after a period of more than one year and two and a half months from the date of the alleged incident, and the charge sheet dated 26.10.[SECTION]5, actually filed on 24.11.[SECTION]5, which is after more than two and a half years after the incident, implicating the present petitioners, a summarized comparison of the two charge sheets would indicate that there is little difference between the two. This comparative chart would disclose this glaring circumstance.
First Charge Sheet Second Charge Sheet During February 2000 the office bearers During February 2000 the i.e. the members of 'Karnataka Kannada office bearers i.e. the [ENTITY]a Dharma [ENTITY]' held members of 'Karnataka meetings; A2-Fr. [ENTITY] Patric and A1 Kannada [ENTITY]a Dharma Fr. [ENTITY] were part of it and [ENTITY]' held decided to work towards taking over the meetings; A7 - Fr. A properties and administration of [ENTITY], A8-Fr [ENTITY] Seminary. A9- Fr.I [ENTITY], A2- Fr.
[ENTITY] and A1 Fr.
[ENTITY] were part of it Then the [ENTITY] Established Contacts and decided to work towards with likeminded [ENTITY] taking over the properties Kannada Catholic [ENTITY] - led and administration of by [ENTITY] and the Santa Josephara Seminary. [ENTITY].
Then the [ENTITY] Established Contacts with likeminded [ENTITY] Kannada Significant acts to take over Catholic [ENTITY] - administration / brow beat members of led by A10- [ENTITY] and Churches not affiliated to them the Santa Josephara [ENTITY] -
1. On 17/2/2000 at 10.30 am members led by A12 - [ENTITY] of [ENTITY] that included A2- [ENTITY]. Took the Help of [ENTITY] and members AKKCCS entered A11 - [ENTITY]. forcibly the seminary premises where meeting of Board of Bishops was going Significant acts to take over on and raised slogans that Seminary is administration / brow beat exclusively for kannada speaking members of Churches not [ENTITY]ians. affiliated to them
1. On 17.2.2000 at 10.30 am members of [ENTITY] that included A2 - [ENTITY], A7- Fr. [ENTITY] and members AKKCCS A10 - [ENTITY], A11 [ENTITY] entered forcibly the seminary premises where meeting of Board of Bishops was going on and raised slogans that Seminary is exclusively for kannada speaking [ENTITY]ians.
2. On 29.6.2000 During Holy Mass in 2. On 29.6.2000 During the Seminary at 11.15 am; A2- Fr. Holy Mass in the Seminary [ENTITY], and members of AKKCCS at 11.15 am; A2-Fr.
read out memorandum during holy [ENTITY] A7- [ENTITY], A8 mass- - Fr.[ENTITY] and members of AKKCCS read out memorandum during holy mass- 3. Following this - Fr. [ENTITY] 3. Following this - Fr. filed civil suit in O.S.No.5183/2000 [ENTITY] filed civil suit before City Civil Court seeking to grant in O.S.No.5183/2000 before Injunction against A2 - [ENTITY], A7 - City Civil Court seeking to Fr. [ENTITY], A8 - Fr.[ENTITY], Fr I grant Injunction against A2 Joseph, Fr [ENTITY], Fr [ENTITY], Fr - [ENTITY], A7 - Fr. A [ENTITY] and restraining them from [ENTITY], A8 - Fr.[ENTITY],
interfering in the activities, affairs and Fr [ENTITY], Fr [ENTITY], Fr functioning of the Seminary; Order to [ENTITY], Fr [ENTITY] and maintain Status quo m remained from - restraining them from 2000 to 14.10.2004 - there was anger interfering in the activities, among the [ENTITY] members. affairs and functioning of the Seminary; Order to maintain Status quo m remained from - 2000 to 14.10.2004 - there was anger among the [ENTITY] members.
4. Periodically A2 Fr. [ENTITY], and 4. Periodically A2 Fr. others visited the office of [ENTITY], A2 - Fr. A and stated that they would wreak [ENTITY], A8 Fr. [ENTITY] -
vengeance- visited the office of [ENTITY] and stated that they would wreak vengeance-
5. During October [SECTION]0 - members of 5. During October [SECTION]0- AKKCCS wished to hoist Kannada flag A10 of AKKCCS wished to on November 1 [SECTION]0-; Also, A2-Fr. hoist Kannada flag on [ENTITY] urged to hoist Flat- November 1 [SECTION]0-; Also, A2-Fr. [ENTITY] - A7-Fr [ENTITY], A8-Fr.[ENTITY] urged to hoist Flag-
On 31.10.[SECTION]0 big group led by Fr. On 31.10.[SECTION]0 big [ENTITY], [ENTITY] hoisted the kannada group led by Fr. [ENTITY], Flag; Thereafter the Authorities started A10- [ENTITY] - A2- hoisted to hoist from then on. the kannada Flag;
Thereafter the Authorities started to hoist from then on.
6. Apprehensions were expressed by Fr. 6. Apprehensions were [ENTITY] to Fr [ENTITY] and Fr. [ENTITY] expressed by Fr. [ENTITY] to [ENTITY]. Fr [ENTITY] and Fr. [ENTITY].
7. During February [SECTION]2 when Annual 7. During February [SECTION]2 meeting of Board of Bishops was held when Annual meeting of inside seminary - [ENTITY] office bearers- Board of Bishops was held A2-Fr [ENTITY] and others met board of inside seminary - [ENTITY] bishops - expressed their views that office bearers- A2-Fr seminary must cater to the needs of [ENTITY], A7-Fr [ENTITY], A-
students from Karnataka. In the same 8-Fr [ENTITY], met board meeting Fr. [ENTITY] was of bishops - expressed their reappointed as Rector from [SECTION]2 to views that seminary must [SECTION]5. cater to the needs of students from Karnataka. In the same meeting Fr. [ENTITY] was reappointed as Rector from [SECTION]2 to [SECTION]5. 8. In the month of July [SECTION]2 the 8. In the month of July [SECTION]2 Vatican authorities appointed three the Vatican authorities member committee that included appointed three member Archbishop of Guwahati, Auxilary committee that included Bishop of Bombay, Bishop of Pune, to Archbishop of Guwahati, study the demands of the Kannada Auxilary Bishop of Bombay, associations. Bishop of Pune, to study the demands of the Kannada associations. 9. A2- [ENTITY] and others 9. A12- [ENTITY] and prepared a representation in their letter members of [ENTITY] heads and handed it over to the [ENTITY] had committee on 17.7.[SECTION]2. The said meetings with A2- [ENTITY] representations depict the mens rea. [ENTITY], A7- Fr [ENTITY], A8- Fr [ENTITY], A9 Fr I [ENTITY] and prepared a representation in their letter heads and handed it over to the committee on 17.7.[SECTION]2. The said representations depict the mens rea. (Representations Culled -NIL- Out)
10. From 20.2.[SECTION]3 to 22.2.[SECTION]3 there 10. From 20.2.[SECTION]3 to was annual meeting of the Board of 22.2.[SECTION]3 there was annual Bishops in the Seminary- meeting of the Board of Bishops in the Seminary-
On 19.2.[SECTION]3 handbills were distributed On 19.2.[SECTION]3 handbills were to public that there is a protest on distributed to public by A10- 20.2.[SECTION]3- [ENTITY] that there is a protest on 20.2.[SECTION]3- On 20.2.[SECTION]3 Members of AKKCS On 20.2.[SECTION]3 Members of raised slogans- Arch Bishop met them AKKCS raised slogans- and said he would forward their Arch Bishop met them and demands to the Vatican. said he would forward their demands to the Vatican.
11. Further many Representations were 11. Further many given to the Roman Catholic Religious Representations were given authorities, Ambassador of Vatican to to the Roman Catholic India, Board of bishops, Archbishop, Religious authorities, etc., Ambassador of Vatican to India, Board of bishops, Archbishop, etc.,
12. -NIL- 12. On 29.3.[SECTION]3 at 11 am a group led by A10- [ENTITY], A12 [ENTITY], A11-[ENTITY] gathered at Town Hall and Protested.
A2-[ENTITY], A7-Fr [ENTITY], A8-Fr [ENTITY], A9 Fr I [ENTITY] were participants.
13. Conspiracy hatched along with their 13. - NIL - associates by A1 and A2 at Kengeri and other Places to commit the murder.
14. On 31.3.[SECTION]3 A1 to A5 went inside 14. -Nil- the Seminary at 11 pm. The offence took place between 11 pm and 2 pm. 31.3.[SECTION]3 murder took place.
15. -NIL- 15. The Arch Bishop promulgated a legislation relating to usage of languages in the churches of Archdiocese Bangalore on 12.4.[SECTION]5. The supporters of the accused persons burnt the circulars on 26.4.[SECTION]5 in front of Church at Gudadahalli and St Joseph Church at Bangalore.
It is well settled by a series of decisions of the Apex court that cognizance cannot be taken unless there is atleast some material indicating the guilt of the accused. (See: [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [ENTITY] vs. M.Devendrappa, (2002)3 SCC 89 and [PRECEDENT].
And as laid down by the Apex Court in [ENTITY]'s case supra, where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Or when the uncontroverted allegations made in the First Information Report or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. Or when a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite the accused due to private and personal grudge, the High Courts could exercise power under [SECTION] or the inherent powers under [SECTION] [ACT], to quash the proceedings.
In the case on hand, when the case sought to be made out against accused no.1 to 5 itself was on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the case against the petitioners who are sought to be arrayed as accused no.6 to 12 (accused no. 8 is dead) the case against them stands even more diluted. This is especially so when it is noticed that the additional statements of witnesses referring to the association of the present petitioners with accused no.1 to 5 does not by itself make out a case against the accused. Even very strong suspicion on the basis that the petitioners had a long standing ill-will against the deceased, would not justify their arraignment as accused in the case. Nor the fact that they had closely associated with accused no. 1 to 5 over time, would make out a case against them of the offences alleged.
Further, the half-hearted initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners, after considerable lapse of time, when the statement of witnesses on which reliance was placed in presenting the additional charge sheet, was already available when the main charge sheet was filed, is yet another circumstance that would militate against the proceedings being initiated against the petitioners.
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime no.157/[SECTION]3 of the Yeshwanthpur Police Station and now pending in case no. CC 27574/[SECTION]5 on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, are hereby quashed.
JUDGE nv*