Even If An Act Is Done On Humanitarian Ground, It Must Be Done As Per Law: Madras HC While Refusing To Quash Proceedings Against Pastor

A Single Judge Bench of Justice G. Ilangovan of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court held that “The ultimate aim or the purpose of Section 482 Cr.P.C is to secure the ends of justice. Whether the prosecution tries to crucify the petitioner for his good intention, is a matter for consideration by the trial Court. But one thing remains, is that this Country is ruled by Rule of law and not by any other considerations Even if an act is done in a humanitarian ground, it must be done as per the law and if any violation is noticed, then that person has to face the prosecution”.

Further, since the matter involved children, the court placed extra emphasis on following the regulations in place and stated that “If any violation of the Rules are noticed, more particularly, running of a Child Home must be in conformity with the Rules and Regulations”.

Senior Advocate Isaac Mohanlal appeared for the Petitioner while Advocate Sudevkumar appeared for the Respondent.

In this case, the Petitioner, Gideon Jacob was the director of M/s. Good Shepherd Evangelical Mission Pvt. Ltd, with an aim to spread the message of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Mose Ministries Home was set up under Good Shepherd Evangelical Mission to foster abandoned children around the area of Usilampatti, Madurai.

The allegation was that the Petitioner had procured 125 girl children from in and around Usilampatti under the guise of preventing them from female infanticide. Out of the 125 girl children so procured, only 89 are available now and the whereabouts of the other 35 girls could not be revealed or disclosed by the Ministry.

A notice was issued to the Moses Ministries to produce the details of the girl children. But the Petitioner submitted only the names and ages of the children. But did not produce the source or origin before the Child Welfare Committee. An inspection was carried out by the District Officials in the Mose Ministries.

The Social Welfare Department of Tamil Nadu found several irregularities in the operation of Mose Ministries and registered a complaint under Sections 20(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hostel and Home for Women and Children Regulation Act, 2014, and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

The Petitioner while appearing before a Division Bench sought to dismiss the findings of the report by the Social Welfare Department. During the proceedings, one of the main interim orders was directing the petitioner to hand over all the Registers showing the particulars of the girl children, and their parents, etc., The above said Registers were not produced, but taken away by some people. The Division Bench had taken the above-said issue seriously, observing that this petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and ordered a CBI Enquiry against the Petitioner.

Offences were made out against the Petitioner under Section 363, 368, 201, 370,370-A, 295-A & 153-A of Indian Penal Code, 1960. Further, under Section 24 r/w 13, 16 (3) of Orphanages and Other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Act, 1960. Under Section 34 read with 32 & 33 and 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and 4. Under Section 20 r/w 6 and 12 of Tamil Nadu Hostel for Woman and Children (Regulation) Act, 2014.

Coming to the charges, the Court held that “On the face of it, Section 363 IPC may not be attracted. Whether the consent of the guardians were properly obtained, is also a matter for consideration by the trial court”.

For the offense alleging propagating religion and enmity under 153(A) and 295(A) of IPC, the Court held that “Whether the inmates were forced to study theology is also matter for consideration by the trial Court. Certainly, it may not be matter for consideration by this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But prima facie, it is seen that all the children were not only given basic education but, they are also provided with training in arts and crafts, tailoring, etc. On the face of it, Section 153 (A) of IPC is also not attracted."

For the offence under Section 295(A) of IPC, the Court held “even without knowing the religion to which the above said children belong, they have been imparted with study of theology and Ministries' and Evangelical Work. So, whether in the factual circumstances of the case, this offence is attracted, is also matter for consideration by the trial Court”.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.

Click here to read/download the Judgment