Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

ORDER RESERVED ON : 21.07.2026

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 29.07.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

Crl.OP.(MD)No.8664 of 2026

and

Crl.M.P(MD)No.9222 of 2026

Most Rev.Dr.Jeevanandam

Bishop of Kumbakonam

S/o.Mr.Amalanathan

Bishop's House, Post Box.No.3

Kamarasar Road, Kumbakonam ...Petitioner/Sole Accused

Vs

1.The State of Tamil Nadu

Represented by the Superintendent of Police

Thanjavur District

2.The Inspector of Police

West Police Station, Kumbakonam

Thanjavur District ...1

st

& 2

nd

Respondents/Complainants

3.P.Arul John ...1

st

Respondent/Defacto Complainant

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for

the records relating to the impugned First Information Report bearing Crime

No.0136 of 2026 dated 04.03.2026 on the file of the second respondent

police and to quash the same in its entirety.

1/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

For Petitioner : Mr.Father Xavier Arulraj

Senior Counsel

M/s.Father Xavier Associates

For Respondents 1& 2 : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar

Government Advocate(crl.side)

For Respondent 3 :Mr.Veera.Kathiravan

Senior Counsel

for Mr.R.Subramanian

ORDER

The present Criminal Original Petition has been instituted by the sole

accused in Crime No.136 of 2026, registered on the file of the second

respondent police, seeking the quashal of the First Information Report

wherein the petitioner stands accused of the commission of an offence

punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter

referred to as IPC).

(A).FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. A meticulous perusal of the First Information Report discloses that

the de-facto complainant is a member of the Roman Catholic Church and has

been acquainted with a clergyman known to him as Father Amirthasamy for

a period spanning seventeen years. It is only upon recent inquiry that the

de-facto complainant came to the knowledge that the said priest's name in

civil records is Jeevanandam.

2/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

3.The complaint further avers that all ecclesiastical records of the

Church - including the Ordo, Priests' Profile, and Diocesan Newsletters -

invariably reflect the petitioner's name as Amirthasamy alone. It is

additionally alleged therein that on 13.01.2024, the petitioner was solemnly

ordained as the Bishop of Kumbakonam and assumed charge of the said

office on 11.02.2024.

4.The complaint proceeds to allege that upon making inquiries at the

educational institutions where the petitioner pursued his studies and the

parishes where he served as Pastor, and upon the collation of relevant

documents, the de-facto complainant discovered that while the petitioner's

baptismal name is Amirthasamy, his name in the school records is entered as

Jeevanandam, S/o. Amalanathan, with the date of birth therein recorded as

02.04.1962.

5.The First Information Report further alleges that subsequent to his

elevation as Bishop of Kumbakonam, the petitioner fraudulently fabricated

the Baptism Certificate and substituted the baptismal name with Jeevanandam

- a name not traditionally of Christian origin. It is also alleged that the

petitioner altered his date of birth from 02.04.1962 to 20.01.1963, with the

active connivance and conspiracy of certain other persons, in order to

engineer the fabrication of the said document. The original Baptism

Certificate reflected the petitioner's name as Amirthasamy S/o. Amalanathan,

3/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

whereas the purportedly fabricated Baptism Certificate bears the name

Jeevanandam S/o. Amalanathan.

6. It is further alleged in the FIR that the Baptism register itself has

been falsified and the fabricated version transmitted to the Vatican City. The

FIR alleges that these acts of fabrication were perpetrated by the accused with

the deliberate and mala fide design to misappropriate and unlawfully seize

the properties belonging to the Diocese of Kumbakonam. On the basis of the

aforesaid allegations, the FIR was registered on 04.03.2026 under Section

420 IPC, which stands impugned in the present petition.

(B).SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL:

7.It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's father was a devoted admirer of

the late Communist leader Jeevanandam, and accordingly, at the time of the

petitioner's Baptism, he endeavoured to have the child baptised under the

name Jeevanandam. However, since the said name was not recognised as a

name of Christian origin, an objection was raised by the Church, and the

petitioner was consequently baptised as Amirthasamy. The learned Senior

Counsel further submits that in all secular and official records - including the

petitioner's school certificates and passport - the name Jeevanandam alone

appears, while the name Amirthasamy was exclusively used in ecclesiastical

communications.

4/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

8.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

petitioner's passport has been issued in the name of Jeevanandam since the

year 2001. He further submits that the order of appointment of the

petitioner as the new Bishop of Kumbakonam Diocese, issued by the Pope on

13.01.2024, also designates the petitioner exclusively as Jeevanandam

S/o. Amalanathan. The learned Senior Counsel additionally brings to the

Court's notice that upon this dispute being brought to the attention of the

Apostolic authority, a clarificatory letter dated 24.11.2026 was issued,

confirming that Jeevanandam Amalanathan, whose name is recorded in the

Baptism register as Amirthasamy Amalanathan, is one and the same person.

9.The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the said clarificatory

letter explicitly records that the Pope is aware of the discrepancy between the

Indian passport and the Baptism Certificate, and that Jeevanandam

Amalanathan has been validly and canonically ordained as Bishop of the

Diocese of Kumbakonam.

10. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in all secular official

records, the petitioner has consistently borne the name Jeevanandam

Amalanathan since the issuance of his Secondary School Leaving Certificate

(SSLC), whereas the name Amirthasamy has been retained exclusively in

ecclesiastical records. In such circumstances, no question of impersonation or

forgery whatsoever arises. The learned Senior Counsel additionally submits

5/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

that the petitioner's parents had preferred an application before the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaaru, in Crl.O.P. No.4433 of 2003, seeking

registration of the petitioner's date of birth, and an order was duly passed

thereon on 28.08.2003. Pursuant to the said order, the Tahsildar,

Thiruvaiyaaru, issued proceedings on 12.09.2003 directing the registration of

the date of birth as 02.04.1962, wherein the petitioner's name is recorded as

A. Jeevanandam and his father's name as Amalanathan. It was on the strength

of the said birth certificate that an amendment was effected in the Baptism

register, incorporating the name Jeevanandam alongside Amirthasamy.

Accordingly, no allegation of forgery in the Church records is sustainable.

11.The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner's

Doctorate in Theology was conferred upon him in the year 2007 at Rome,

exclusively in the name of Jeevanandam Amalanathan, and that his passport

has been periodically renewed, consistently bearing the said name.

12.It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the

discrepancy between the ecclesiastical records and the secular official

records cannot, by any stretch of legal reasoning, be construed as an act of

impersonation. He further submits that there is no allegation whatsoever that

Amirthasamy and Jeevanandam are two distinct individuals, and that the

latter is fraudulently impersonating the former. The allegation is confined

solely to the discrepancy between the Church records and the official records.

6/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

The learned Senior Counsel further submits that such discrepancy cannot

attract the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC - particularly when the

Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church has expressly clarified that

the said discrepancy is within his knowledge and that Amirthasamy and

Jeevanandam refer to one and the same individual.

13. The learned Senior Counsel further urges that the clarificatory letter

was issued subsequent to the consecration of the petitioner as Bishop. In such

circumstances, the petitioner who is merely a lay member of the Catholic

faith cannot be said to have any justiciable grievance in the matter, nor can

such a person be construed to be an aggrieved person competent to lodge a

police complaint. The learned Senior Counsel therefore, prays for the

quashing of the First Information Report in its entirety.

14. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third

respondent / de-facto complainant contends that the name and date of birth

as stated in the original Baptism Certificate are materially and completely at

variance with those reflected in the present certificate, and that such

alterations were effected with the sole and oblique purpose of securing the

petitioner's consecration as Bishop of Kumbakonam. He further contends that

until the year 2003, the petitioner was exclusively known as Amirthasamy,

and only thereafter did he attempt to effect a change of name in official

records through an application instituted before the Court by his parents.

7/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

15. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the de-facto

complainant, a discreet and confidential inquiry is ordinarily conducted prior

to the consecration of any person as Bishop. It is alleged that in order to

preempt any adverse findings that might emerge from such an inquiry, the

petitioner clandestinely altered his name from Amirthasamy to Jeevanandam

by means of fabrication of Church records.

16.The learned Senior Counsel further contends that an application was

made before the Headmaster of the relevant educational institution,

requesting the furnishing of certain details. The school, in turn, sought the

petitioner's consent before furnishing information under the Right to

Information Act. Since the petitioner raised an objection, the Headmaster

declined to provide the said information. This conduct, according to the

learned Senior Counsel, raises grave suspicion and necessitates a thorough

investigation.

17.The learned Senior Counsel for the de-facto complainant further

submits that the petitioner sought to rely upon an order of the Tahsildar for

the purpose of recording his date of birth. When particulars were

requisitioned from the Headquarters, Deputy Tahsildar's Office,

Thiruvaiyaaru, the said office communicated by its proceedings dated

13.08.2025 that the said records were not available. It is accordingly

submitted that the alleged court order, the Tahsildar's proceedings, and the

8/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

purported birth registration in the year 2003 are all fabricated documents. On

the strength of such fabricated documents, a consequential falsification of

records were allegedly carried out, which enabled the petitioner to secure his

consecration as Bishop. In such circumstances, unless the investigation is

permitted to proceed to its logical conclusion, the true nature and extent of

the criminal intent underlying the creation of these fabricated documents

cannot be ascertained. The learned Senior Counsel emphasises that the office

of Bishop of a Diocese carries with it control over numerous educational

institutions, and the properties administered and managed by the Bishop are

valued at several crores of rupees. In such circumstances, interdicting the

investigative process at the stage of the FIR would be grossly contrary to the

interests of justice.

18.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for

the respondent-State submits that the FIR was registered on the basis of the

complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant, and that it is only upon the

conclusion of the investigation that the veracity or otherwise of the alleged

fabrication of documents can be established. In such circumstances, the

quashing of the FIR at the present stage would be premature and would

impermissibly truncate the investigative process.

19.This Court has heard the learned counsel for all parties at length and

has carefully perused the materials on record.

9/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

(C).Discussion:

20. A careful and circumspect examination of the First Information

Report reveals that the petitioner's baptismal name, as recorded in the

Baptism register, is Amirthasamy Amalanathan. Various ecclesiastical

records - including the Priests' Profile and Diocesan Newsletters- also reflect

the petitioner's name as Amirthasamy. The petitioner passed the SSLC

examination in the year 1978, wherein his name is recorded as Jeevanandam

Amalanathan. The passport produced by the petitioner, held since the year

2001, likewise bears the name Jeevanandam Amalanathan.

21.The Doctorate in Theology conferred upon the petitioner from

Rome in the year 2007 also reflects the name Jeevanandam Amalanathan,

which is in consonance with the passport particulars. The petitioner was

consecrated as Bishop of the Diocese by order of the Pope dated 13.01.2024,

wherein also the petitioner's name is recorded as Jeevanandam Amalanathan.

When this dispute was brought to the notice of the Pope, a clarificatory letter

was issued on 27.04.2026, recording that Jeevanandam and Amirthasamy

refer to one and the same person, and that the Pope is cognisant of such

discrepancy.

22. In the aforesaid clarificatory letter, the Pope has also recorded that

the name of the petitioner as found in his Indian passport has been retained in

the official records. It has further been clarified that Jeevanandam

10/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

Amalanathan has been validly and canonically ordained as Bishop of the

Diocese of Kumbakonam.

23. It is manifest from the foregoing deliberations that the petitioner

retained the name Amirthasamy (his baptismal name) in all internal

ecclesiastical communications, while the civil name Jeevanandam is

consistently reflected in his school records, passport, Doctorate degree, and in

the very order of his consecration as Bishop issued by the Pope.

24.The core question that arises for adjudication in the present

proceedings is whether the use of the civil name in lieu of the baptismal name

in the order of consecration of the Bishop attracts the essential ingredients of

Section 420 IPC.

25.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the judgment reported as

(2016) 1 SCC 348 (International Advanced Research Centre for Powder

Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) and others v. Nimra Cerglass

Technics Private Limited and another), has, in paragraphs 15 and 16

thereof, elucidated the law as follows:

“ 15. The essential ingredients to attract Section 420 IPC are:

(i) cheating; (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property

or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything

which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a

valuable security; and (iii) mens rea of the accused at the time of

making the inducement. The making of a false representation is

11/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

one of the essential ingredients to constitute the offence of

cheating under Section 420 IPC. In order to bring a case for the

offence of cheating, it is not merely sufficient to prove that a false

representation had been made, but it is further necessary to prove

that the representation was false to the knowledge of the accused

and was made in order to deceive the complainant.

16. The distinction between a mere breach of contract and

cheating would depend upon the intention of the accused at the

time of the alleged inducement. If it is established that the

intention of the accused was dishonest at the very time when he

made a promise and entered into a transaction with the

complainant to part with his property or money, then the liability

is criminal and the accused is guilty of the offence of cheating. On

the other hand, if all that is established is that a representation

made by the accused has subsequently not been kept, criminal

liability cannot be foisted on the accused and the only right which

the complainant acquires is the remedy for breach of contract in a

civil court. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal

prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention

is shown at the beginning of the transaction.”

26. A careful reading of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court makes it abundantly clear that for the essential ingredients of

Section 420 IPC to be attracted, there must be: (a) a dishonest inducement to

deliver property or valuable security; (b) mens rea on the part of the accused

at the time of making such inducement; and (c) the inducement must have

12/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

been made with the deliberate intent to deceive the complainant.

27. In the present case, the discrepancy between the Church records

and the secular official records has subsisted since the petitioner's childhood.

While the ecclesiastical records reflect the petitioner's name as Amirthasamy,

the school records have consistently borne the name Jeevanandam. It is

therefore manifest that the name Jeevanandam did not emerge for the first

time in the year 2003, when the petitioner's parents approached the criminal

court for the registration of his date of birth.

28. The learned Senior Counsel for the de-facto complainant has

contended that the records of the Tahsildar's Office pertaining to the

registration of the petitioner's date of birth are not traceable in that office,

and therefore the said document must be treated as fabricated. This Court

considers it appropriate to examine the legal position in this regard.

29.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgment reported as 2026 SCC

Online 309 (Vandana Jain and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

others), has, in paragraph 24 thereof, held as follows:

“24. In our view, merely because a document is not

traceable in the records after several years of its issuance, it

cannot be said that the document is forged. It is a matter of

common knowledge that certificates/letters, such as the one in

question, are not maintained in perpetuity. Therefore, if, after 10 or

11 years, merely because the office reports that such

13/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

letter/certificate is not traceable in the records of the office, it

cannot be said that it is forged. A document would be considered a

forged document only when the allegations are to the effect that it

is a false document within the meaning of Section 464 of the IPC.

There appear to be no allegations that the title documents

submitted by the accused were forged. In such circumstances, the

allegation that false documents have been submitted is baseless.”

30.Applying the aforesaid ratio decidendi to the facts of the present

case, the mere non-traceability of a particular document in the Tahsildar's

office after the lapse of twenty-two years cannot, ipso facto, render the same

as a fabricated or forged document.

31. It is true that the date of birth recorded in the Baptism Certificate

(20.01.1963) differs from that recorded in the birth certificate (02.04.1962).

However, such a discrepancy in the date of birth, without any evidence of

governmental service where age has material legal consequences, would not,

in the ordinary course, carry any legal significance.

32. Though the FIR contains broad and sweeping allegations that the

petitioner intends to misappropriate the properties of the Diocese and to

exercise control over the administration and management of several aided

educational institutions, these allegations are founded entirely upon the

presumption that the petitioner fabricated Church records to secure his

consecration as Bishop. No specific instance of wrongful acquisition or

14/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

mal-administration of Church property has been set out in the FIR.

33. It bears emphasis that the complainant's case is not premised upon

an allegation that Amirthasamy and Jeevanandam are two wholly distinct

individuals and that the petitioner (Jeevanandam) is fraudulently

personating the former in order to secure consecration as Bishop. This is,

therefore, not a case of impersonation in any legal sense. The sole allegation

is that there exists a discrepancy between the Church records and the secular

official records - namely the school records and the passport.

34.The allegation is that the Baptism Certificate is a fabricated

document, and that on the strength of this fabricated document, the petitioner

was consecrated as Bishop of the Diocese of Kumbakonam. In this

connection, it is relevant to note that a birth certificate was duly issued in the

year 2003 pursuant to the Tahsildar's proceedings, and on the strength of that

birth certificate, the name Jeevanandam was incorporated by way of

amendment in the Baptism register. This incorporation, in law, cannot render

the Baptism Certificate a fabricated document. Furthermore, the very order

of appointment of the petitioner as Bishop, issued by the Pope, reflects the

petitioner's name as Jeevanandam alone. In such circumstances, it defies

logic and legal reason to contend that the amendment to the Baptism

Certificate was made with the intent to facilitate the petitioner's consecration

as Bishop. Most significantly, after the discrepancy was brought to the

15/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

attention of the Pope, his office has issued a clarificatory letter on

27.04.2026, expressly affirming that they are cognisant of the discrepancy,

that Jeevanandam and Amirthasamy refer to one and the same person, and

that in the order of consecration, the name as found in the Indian passport

was adopted. The said letter has further unequivocally affirmed that the

petitioner has been validly and canonically ordained as Bishop of the

Diocese. In such circumstances, it is beyond comprehension how the de-facto

complainant could claim to be aggrieved by the discrepancy between the

Church records and the secular official records.

35.The allegation of cheating under Section 420 IPC is wholly

unsustainable inasmuch as the very order of consecration of the petitioner as

Bishop reflects the name Jeevanandam, consistent with the secular official

records. Merely because the Baptism Certificate varies from the secular

official records, the same cannot be treated as a fabricated document or be

construed to establish that the petitioner has indulged in cheating.

36. As per the ratio decidendi enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in (2016) 1 SCC 348 (extracted supra), Section 420 IPC can be

attracted only if the false representation was made with the deliberate purpose

of deceiving the complainant. In the present case, the de-facto complainant

has not averred anywhere in the complaint that he was personally deceived

by reason of the discrepancy between the Church records and the secular

16/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

official records.

37. In view of the aforesaid analysis, since the essential ingredients of

Section 420 IPC are manifestly not attracted on the facts of the present case,

the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would

constitute a clear and unconscionable abuse of the process of law.

(D).CONLUSION:

38. In view of the foregoing deliberations, this Court holds and directs

as follows:

(i) The First Information Report in Crime No.0136 of 2026,

registered on the file of the second respondent police, stands quashed.

(ii) This Criminal Original Petition is accordingly allowed.

Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

29.07.2026.

Internet : Yes/No

Index : Yes/No

NCC : Yes/No

msa

17/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

To

1.The Superintendent of Police

Thanjavur District

2.The Inspector of Police

West Police Station

Kumbakonam

Thanjavur District

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

Madurai

18/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.8664 of 2026

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

msa

Crl.OP.(MD)No.8664 of 2026

and

Crl.M.P(MD)No.9222 of 2026

29.07.2026

19/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis