The Kerala High Court on Tuesday ordered the police to register an FIR against Cardinal Mar George Alancherry, the Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabar Church, and three others in relation to the land scam of the Ernakulam-Angamaly Archdiocese. Allowing a writ petition filed by Sherin Varghese, the court observed that there was prima facie evidence to indicate a criminal conspiracy, breech of trust and criminal misappropriation in the land deals.
The allegations in the petition and documents submitted along with it constitute the ingredients of a cognizable offence. The police cannot turn a blind eye to a cognizable offence, said the court while referring to the submission of the petitioner that the police were reluctant to book a case against the Cardinal and others.
Father Joshy Puthuva, Father Sebastian Vadakkumpadan and a real estate dealer Saju Varghese were listed as the other respondents in the case. The petitioner contended that the Cardinal and others colluded with each other with the intention to cheat the dioceses and to misappropriate funds. The respondents sold off the properties of the diocese for a high value after showing a minimum fair value in the sale deeds and causing loss to the diocese. Though the diocese was expected to get ₹27 crore from the sale of properties, it got only ₹9 crore, it was submitted.
On the contention of the Cardinal and others that they were denied the opportunity to defend their case, the court held that the question of denial of natural justice did not arise as they were opposing the writ petition tooth and nail for the last four days in the court.
The specific instances and other details produced in the case pointed out how recklessly the land transactions were made. The allegations clearly pointed out to the probability of cases of conspiracy committed by the Cardinal and others.
The court observed that the Cardinal was just a representative of the diocese in juridical affairs and was expected to safeguard its interests. The allegations and the materials before the court pointed out that the transactions were held in a reckless manner, it said.
The properties of the diocese cannot be treated as the property of the Cardinal. The properties of the diocese were not acquired using the income of the Cardinal and others but from the money raised from the churches that came under the diocese, the court held.
The court also dismissed the contention of the respondents that the issue in question was a civil matter.
