The Supreme Court has declined to revoke the stay order granted by the Kerala High Court in the Syro-Malabar Church land deal case..A Bench of Justices AK Goel and RF Nariman passed the order while hearing an appeal against the order passed by the Kerala High Court..Senior advocate V Giri and advocate Raghenth Basant appeared for the petitioner..By way of background, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on March 16, stayed an order passed by a Single Judge Bench against the Major Archbishop Cardinal of the Syro-Malabar Church, in connection with a land deal case. It was alleged that the Cardinal and others were involved in the misappropriation of Church properties in the state..The Single Judge on March 6, acting upon the petition filed by the petitioner Shine Varghese, ordered the police to register an FIR and also directed the police to conduct an impartial probe into the matter..The Division Bench, while staying the verdict passed by the Single Judge, observed that any proceeding which has been carried on till now shall stand suspended and will have no effect whatsoever on the respondents. It also observed that the petitioner has abused the judicial process and approached the High Court prematurely..The petition in the Supreme Court, drawn by advocate Raghenth Basant and filed by advocate Liz Mathew, contends that the reasoning by the Division Bench of the High Court is not legally tenable, as the petitioner approached the High Court only after the police refused to act upon his complaint. The Station House Officer (SHO) refused to issue a receipt for the complaint made by the petitioner against the heads of the Church..It also contends that the SHO informed the petitioner that he had instructions from his superiors not to issue a receipt in case a complaint is filed against the religious heads. The petitioner further contends that the Commissioner of Police issued a press release which noted that no FIR will be registered against the heads of the religious institution..Moreover, during the hearing before the Single Judge, the Major Archbishop Cardinal Mar George Alancherry argued that that as per Canon Law, it is for the Pope of The Vatican to control the affairs of the ecclesiastical and temporal properties of the Diocese, and therefore, the law of the land does not apply to him..Based on the above grounds, the petitioner framed ten questions to be addressed by the Court. The key questions are:.Whether the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate the fact that once an FIR is registered, the remedy for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 herein was to file a petition for quashing the FIR?Whether a Writ Appeal was maintainable in the present case in light of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Ram Kishan Fauji Vs. The state of Haryana?Whether the Division Bench ought to have appreciated the fact that an FIR was already registered by the time the case came up for hearing before the Division Bench and therefore, no stay ought to have been granted?Whether the contention of Respondent No. 3 that he is bound only by the Canon Law and even if there are any irregularities in the land dealings, the same cannot be dragged to a Court of Law is legally sustainable?.The Supreme Court, while dismissing the petition, observed that since the matter is pending before the High Court, all the contentions raised in the present petition should be brought before the High Court to adjudicate upon.. Read petition:
The Supreme Court has declined to revoke the stay order granted by the Kerala High Court in the Syro-Malabar Church land deal case..A Bench of Justices AK Goel and RF Nariman passed the order while hearing an appeal against the order passed by the Kerala High Court..Senior advocate V Giri and advocate Raghenth Basant appeared for the petitioner..By way of background, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on March 16, stayed an order passed by a Single Judge Bench against the Major Archbishop Cardinal of the Syro-Malabar Church, in connection with a land deal case. It was alleged that the Cardinal and others were involved in the misappropriation of Church properties in the state..The Single Judge on March 6, acting upon the petition filed by the petitioner Shine Varghese, ordered the police to register an FIR and also directed the police to conduct an impartial probe into the matter..The Division Bench, while staying the verdict passed by the Single Judge, observed that any proceeding which has been carried on till now shall stand suspended and will have no effect whatsoever on the respondents. It also observed that the petitioner has abused the judicial process and approached the High Court prematurely..The petition in the Supreme Court, drawn by advocate Raghenth Basant and filed by advocate Liz Mathew, contends that the reasoning by the Division Bench of the High Court is not legally tenable, as the petitioner approached the High Court only after the police refused to act upon his complaint. The Station House Officer (SHO) refused to issue a receipt for the complaint made by the petitioner against the heads of the Church..It also contends that the SHO informed the petitioner that he had instructions from his superiors not to issue a receipt in case a complaint is filed against the religious heads. The petitioner further contends that the Commissioner of Police issued a press release which noted that no FIR will be registered against the heads of the religious institution..Moreover, during the hearing before the Single Judge, the Major Archbishop Cardinal Mar George Alancherry argued that that as per Canon Law, it is for the Pope of The Vatican to control the affairs of the ecclesiastical and temporal properties of the Diocese, and therefore, the law of the land does not apply to him..Based on the above grounds, the petitioner framed ten questions to be addressed by the Court. The key questions are:.Whether the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate the fact that once an FIR is registered, the remedy for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 herein was to file a petition for quashing the FIR?Whether a Writ Appeal was maintainable in the present case in light of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Ram Kishan Fauji Vs. The state of Haryana?Whether the Division Bench ought to have appreciated the fact that an FIR was already registered by the time the case came up for hearing before the Division Bench and therefore, no stay ought to have been granted?Whether the contention of Respondent No. 3 that he is bound only by the Canon Law and even if there are any irregularities in the land dealings, the same cannot be dragged to a Court of Law is legally sustainable?.The Supreme Court, while dismissing the petition, observed that since the matter is pending before the High Court, all the contentions raised in the present petition should be brought before the High Court to adjudicate upon.. Read petition:
