Malankara Church Dispute| Offence Of Forgery Not Attracted: Kerala High Court Drops Proceedings Against Persons Accused Of Forging 1934 Constitution

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday quashed all proceedings against two individuals who were accused of forging the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church observing that the matter had already been dealt with by the Supreme Court and the case was an instance of abuse of process of court. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A found that the Apex Court had already clarified that the non-registration or the indicated modifications made in the 1934 Constitution cannot be a valid contention to challenge the validity of the document if any petitioner places reliance on it. "When the Honourable Supreme Court approved the terms of the 1934 Constitution, nothing precludes the petitioners herein from relying upon the same. Under no circumstances such reliance placed by the petitioners can be treated as an instance of using a false document as genuine for attracting the offence under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the allegations in Annexure-A4 regarding the forgery committed in respect of Clauses 1 and 3 of Annexure-A10 are unsustainable in law."The petitioners herein and some others instituted a suit before a sub court seeking a declaration that St.Johns Besphage Orthodox Syrian Church, Pulinthanam is a constituent parish church of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and is to be administered in accordance with the provisions of the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.In the said suit, they produced a document claiming to be the Constitution of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. According to the 2nd respondent herein, this document is a forged one as it contains certain marked differences in certain clauses when compared with its original. The respondent also alleged that the document did not contain any registration number, stamp paper or the necessary declaration as required under Section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 to print the same. Therefore, he lodged a complaint and a crime was consequently registered against the petitioners. The petitioners moved the High Court praying that the said proceedings are liable to be quashed.Appearing through Advocate Roshen D. Alexander, Tina Alex Thomas and Harimohan, the petitioners pointed out that the document is the certified copy of the Constitution of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and was not printed, published or executed by them. Therefore, they contended that it would not attract the offences punishable under the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act.More importantly, they asserted that all the irregularities pointed out by the de facto complainant were already clarified by the Supreme Court. It was indicated that the 1934 Constitution produced before the Apex Court contained the same modifications highlighted in this complaint and that the Supreme Court had rejected a petition challenging these modifications.They argued that the Supreme Court in K.S. Varghese & Ors v St. Peter's & St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox and Ors [2017(3) KLT 261 SC] had further found that the non-registration of the 1934 Constitution cannot be taken as a contention by any of the parties.It was also contended that to attract the offences punishable under Section 468 IPC, the person who allegedly committed forgery of a document must be the maker of the same.The Bench noted that the validity of the 1934 Constitution and all its contents was approved by the Supreme Court with a specific finding that the same shall govern the Church. Although illegal alterations were pointed out, they were explicitly rejected by re-affirming the conclusions. Therefore, the Court held that it is not open for any person to raise a contention regarding the falsity in the aforesaid clauses if at all the same can be treated as an alteration at all. The Court made the following observations regarding forgery: Mentioning the name of the defendant in a plaint submitted by the plaintiff differently would not attract the offence of forgeryOne of the essential ingredients for attracting forgery under Section 463 IPC is making a false document with the impression that the same was created by another person or with the authority of another person. In this case, the only allegation was that name of the 1st respondent was described differently. However, the plaintiff himself took up the responsibility for the averments made in his plaint including the descriptions of the names in the cause title. He did not claim that they were made by some other person or under the authority of some other person. In such circumstances, it was held that the plaintiff's act would not attract the offence of forgery, even if it is false.Lack of registration by itself would not attract the offence of forgeryThe Court observed that while this was a settled position in law as such, the Apex Court had also specifically established that the non-registration of the 1934 Constitution is not a valid contention at all. ...

Malankara Church Dispute| Offence Of Forgery Not Attracted: Kerala High Court Drops Proceedings Against Persons Accused Of Forging 1934 Constitution

Hannah M Varghese

The Court noted that the issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court.

Tags