Kerala HC Dismisses Priest's Plea to Quash Harbouring Charges Linked to Fake Advocate Case
The Kerala High Court found prima facie material under Section 212 IPC against a priest accused of sheltering a woman who forged enrolment certificates and fraudulently practised as an advocate in Alappuzha.
The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has dismissed a petition filed by Fr. Tomcy Thomas, the third accused in a criminal case arising from Crime No. 474/2021 of Alappuzha North Police Station. Fr. Thomas sought to quash the final report filed against him in CC No. 1211 of 2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Haripad. Justice A. Badharudeen, sitting singly, held on 23 July 2026 that a prima facie case of harbouring an offender under Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code was made out from the prosecution materials, and that the quashment prayer was therefore liable to fail. The petition had been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Fraud at the Heart of the Case
The prosecution's case centres on the first accused, a woman who allegedly impersonated the second witness in the case and used that person's enrolment certificate bearing No. K/1177/2018. She forged the certificate, substituted her own name and photograph, and used the document as genuine to obtain membership of the Bar Association, Alappuzha.
On the strength of the forged certificate, the first accused contested elections to the Executive Committee of the Bar Association and served as a member from 30 March 2019 to 15 July 2021. During that period she practised in various courts in Alappuzha and was appointed as Advocate Commissioner in several cases. It was subsequently revealed that she had not passed the LL.B. examination and that the enrolment certificate she had produced was forged.
The offences alleged against the first accused include those punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 201 and 212 of the IPC. The specific allegation against the second and third accused — including Fr. Thomas — is that after the fraud came to light, the first accused absconded for approximately 21 months. During that period she stayed at Nirmala Inter College, Mithaura Bazar Hostel, Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh, and the second and third accused allegedly helped her hide there. On this basis, accused Nos. 2 and 3 are charged with the offence of harbouring an offender under Section 212 IPC.
The Petitioner's Challenge and the Prosecution's Response
Fr. Thomas, who is a resident of Little Flower Polytechnic, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, contended before the court that no specific allegation establishing commission of the offence under Section 212 IPC by the third accused could be found in the final report. His counsel argued that there were no prosecution materials available to make out the offence against him even prima facie.
The Public Prosecutor countered by reading out the statement of CW23, Father Jose C.A., who held the post of Superior of Nirmalasramam. CW23 stated that a lady calling herself “Catherine” had stayed at the hostel after suppressing her real name. He stated that he did not know her real identity at the time. The Prosecutor submitted that the statement of CW23 disclosed the requisite prima facie material to sustain the Section 212 charge against both accused Nos. 2 and 3.
What Section 212 IPC Requires
Before addressing the rival contentions, Justice Badharudeen extracted the full text of Section 212 IPC. The provision punishes whoever harbours or conceals a person whom the accused knows, or has reason to believe, to be an offender, with the intention of screening that person from legal punishment. The punishment varies depending on the gravity of the underlying offence: up to five years' imprisonment if the offence sheltered is punishable with death; up to three years if punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment extending to ten years; and up to one-fourth of the maximum term for lesser offences.
The court identified three operative ingredients: first, the commission of an offence by the person sheltered; second, the accused's knowledge or reasonable belief that the person is an offender; and third, the intention to screen that person from legal punishment.
How the Court Read the Witness Statement
Justice Badharudeen examined the statement of CW23 in detail. CW23 recounted that a lady named “Catherine” had come to stay at the hostel. He said she was permitted to reside there because Fr. Tomcy Thomas had informed him that she was the sister of Fr. Sandeep, the second accused. CW23 stated that he later watched a news report on Asianet News and recognised the photograph of the lady as the same person who had resided at the hostel — the person who had produced a forged certificate, obtained Bar Association membership and been elected to the Executive Committee. He then identified the first accused before the police while giving his statement.
On the basis of this material, the court concluded that Fr. Thomas, in connivance with the second accused, had harboured and concealed the first accused knowing her to be an offender, with the intention of screening her from legal punishment. The court held that this constituted a prima facie case under Section 212 IPC.
Outcome
CRL.MC No. 9671 of 2025 was dismissed on 23 July 2026. The interim order of stay that had been granted in the proceedings was vacated. The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the order to the jurisdictional court for information and further steps. Proceedings in CC No. 1211 of 2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Haripad, will therefore continue against Fr. Tomcy Thomas as the third accused.