Holy Cross Church Kurla Faces Controversy Over FIRs and Court Case.

The Holy Cross Church Kurla controversy has intensified after parishioners raised questions about FIRs, a Bombay High Court petition and the sudden absence of Parish Priest Fr Barthol Machado. A representation dated 18 February 2026 sought clarity from church authorities regarding ongoing legal proceedings. Parish members claim there was no official explanation for the priest’s absence since January, fuelling speculation and concern. References to FIRs and a High Court listing have increased sensitivity around transparency and governance within the parish administration. Church authorities have yet to issue a detailed public clarification.

Holy Cross Church Kurla Controversy: FIRs, Bombay High Court Case and Priest’s Disappearance Trigger Governance Questions

The Holy Cross Church Kurla controversy has escalated after parishioners questioned church authorities over alleged FIRs, a Bombay High Court case, and the sudden disappearance of Parish Priest Fr Barthol Machado.

In a detailed representation dated 18 February 2026, parishioners guided by Pune based Catholic activist Dominic Lobo wrote to John Rodrigues, seeking clarity on ongoing legal proceedings.

The letter alleges that priests attached to Holy Cross Church, Kurla, are named in criminal complaints and related court petitions. Parishioners have demanded transparency regarding the exact status of these proceedings.

A circular reportedly issued from the Archbishop’s House and read out in church has become a focal point of concern. The communication allegedly cast doubt on Bombay High Court listings linked to FIR quashing petitions.

Parishioners argue that questioning the authenticity of such listings indirectly challenges the integrity of High Court records, thereby intensifying the institutional sensitivity of the matter.

At the centre of the controversy is Fr Barthol Machado, who has reportedly remained absent from the parish since 12 January 2026 without any formal public explanation.

Church members claim that nearly four weeks passed without an official announcement, even as rumours circulated regarding criminal complaints and legal action involving parish administration.

The issue gained urgency when concerned parishioners proposed filing a missing persons complaint at the local police station, citing anxiety about the priest’s whereabouts and safety.

Bombay High Court Proceedings, FIR Details and Allegations of Administrative Silence

According to the representation, a Bombay High Court order dated 12 February 2026 listed four individuals, including Fr Barthol Machado, in a petition seeking quashing of FIRs.

Parishioners state that the High Court documentation indicates active legal proceedings, contradicting claims that online discussions about FIRs were fabricated or misleading.

The controversy references at least two FIRs. One FIR, numbered 0011 of 2024, was reportedly filed on 10 January 2024. Another FIR, numbered 0023 of 2026, was registered on 8 January 2026 against four accused persons.

Copies of these FIRs are said to be available with the Association of Concerned Catholics, a lay Catholic body monitoring church governance issues, though the documents have not been publicly released.

Questions have been raised about the timing of communication from the Archbishop’s House at Nathalal Parekh Marg, Mumbai, and whether parishioners were adequately informed.

The letter also refers to earlier correspondence addressed to Oswald Gracias, highlighting previous warnings about internal disputes and alleged misconduct within parish administration.

Parishioners allege that concerns shared with former clergy, including the late Fr Milton Gonsalves, were not acted upon over the past two years.

The representation suggests that the disappearance of the Parish Priest coincided with legal developments, fuelling speculation that his absence may be connected to ongoing criminal proceedings.

Also Read: Badlapur Women Egg Trafficking Racket Busted by Police.

Church Governance, Holy Cross High School and Demand for Administrative Restructuring

The Holy Cross Church Kurla controversy has extended to Holy Cross High School, where administrative roles are now under scrutiny amid the legal dispute.

Fr Gavin Dsouza, currently serving as Principal, has been described by parishioners as not directly involved in the original allegations. However, his name reportedly appeared in court documents due to his official capacity.

Attention has instead centred on decisions taken by the Parish Priest and former administrators, with claims that complaint handling and management responses aggravated the situation.

Concerned parishioners have demanded immediate administrative restructuring. This includes the transfer of Fr Barthol Machado and appointment of a senior priest capable of stabilising parish operations.

Names such as Fr Robinson Varghese have been suggested as potential interim leaders who could restore trust, transparency and orderly functioning within the parish community.

The episode raises broader governance questions for religious institutions in India, particularly when clergy members face legal scrutiny involving FIRs and High Court proceedings.

Legal experts clarify that registration of an FIR does not establish guilt. Filing a petition for quashing before the High Court is a lawful remedy available to accused individuals.

However, communication gaps between church leadership and parishioners have intensified mistrust, highlighting the importance of timely and transparent institutional responses.

As of now, there has been no detailed public clarification from the Archdiocese regarding the precise legal status of the priests named in the alleged proceedings.

Fr Gavin Dsouza: Questions of Accountability and Administrative Transition

Sources within the parish community state that Fr Norbert Dsouza, the former Principal of Holy Cross High School, was allegedly associated with Fr Barthol Machado during the period when the disputed decisions were taken.

However, parishioners now claim that attention and criticism have shifted towards Fr Gavin Dsouza, who currently serves as Principal, primarily because he holds the present administrative charge.

Several community members argue that responsibility for past actions should be examined in the context of the tenure during which those decisions were made, rather than being attributed solely to the current office bearer.

At the same time, others maintain that the present leadership carries the duty to clarify institutional records, ensure transparency, and address concerns raised by parents and parish stakeholders.

Readers’ Appeal:

“Truth needs courage, and courage begins with one voice.”

If you have credible information or documents related to this matter, feel free to contact us on 9322755098.
Unmesh Gujarathi, investigative journalist, welcomes verified leads in public interest.