CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY v. STATE OF KERALA & Anr.

court issuing summons against the appellant and others after dealing with each and every aspect of the matter including the ingredients of alleged offences for which the summons were issued against the appellant. The High Court in the impugned order has also discussed in detail the submissions made by the counsels for the parties in the petitions filed by the appellant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and upheld the order passed by the Sessions Court. In view of the said observations made and prima facie findings recorded by the three courts below as regards the alleged involvement of the appellant in the alleged offences, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. [Para 17][1031-A-C]

No doubt, summoning of an accused is a serious matter and therefore the Magistrate before issuing the summons to the accused is obliged to scrutinize carefully the allegations made in the complaint with a view to prevent a person named therein as accused from being called upon to face any frivolous complaint, nonetheless one of the objects of Section 202 Cr.P.C. is also to enable the Magistrate to prosecute a person or persons against whom grave allegations are made. Just as it is necessary to curtail vexatious and frivolous complaints against innocent persons, it is equally essential to punish the guilty after conducting a fair trial. In the instant cases, all the three courts below have discussed in detail about the prima facie involvement of the appellant in the alleged offences, and therefore it is not necessary for this Court to reiterate the same. Suffice it to say that having carefully examined the record of the complaints in question, there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the trial court issuing summons against the appellant-Archbishop for the alleged offences. [Para 18][1031-C-F]

The High Court in its overzealous approach had travelled not only beyond the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C and of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but had crossed all the boundaries of judicial activism and judicial restraint by passing such orders under the guise of doing real and substantial justice. The jurisprudential enthusiasm and wisdom for doing the substantial justice has to be applied by the courts within the A B C D E F G H CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY v. STATE OF KERALA & ANR. 1017 permissible limits. The belief of self-righteousness or smugness of the High Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review should not overawe the other authorities discharging their statutory functions. The court may not have to remind the High Courts that judicial restraint is a virtue, and the predilections of individual judges, howsoever well intentioned, cannot be permitted to be operated in utter disregard of the well-recognized judicial principles governing uniform application of law. Unwarranted judicial activism may cause uncertainty or confusion not only in the mind of the authorities but also in the mind of the litigants. [Paras 28 and 29][1036-A-D]