Telangana High Court
Mrs. Mogal Quasar Begum vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11125 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short 'the Cr.P.C') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.895 of 2021 on the file of the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad Commissionerate at Malkajgiri, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 12 (1) (B) of the Indian Passport Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act').
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent registered a complaint against the petitioners stating that he received information through Passport Officer that petitioner No.1 is having two passports vide passport Nos.A5901029 and B0281815 and she also got issued another passport No.J3447558 with different names and date of birth. Basing on the said complaint, Police registered a case in Crime No.76 of 2021 and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet before the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad Commissionerate at Malkajgiri.
3. Heard Sri P. Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11125 OF 2022 learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.1 is holding the passport bearing No.J3447558 issued by the Passport Officer on 15.02.2011 and the expiry was on 14.02.2021. After expiry, petitioner No.1 applied for reissuance of the same to the Regional Passport Officer. Later, Passport Officer, Hyderabad issued a show cause notice to petitioner No.1 asking her to furnish the information regarding change in her personal particulars along with documentary proof within 10 days, failing which, necessary action will be initiated. Petitioner No.1 gave reply to the said show cause notice and explained all the facts regarding the passports held by her and to accept her correct personal details as per passport bearing No.J3447558.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the age of petitioner No.1 at the time of obtaining the passport bearing No.A5901029 dated 05.08.1998 was six and half years and at that time, she did not know what happened to that passport. Neither petitioner No.1 nor other petitioners received that passport. Subsequently, Passport Officer issued another passport bearing No.B0281815 dated 30.06.1999 and the same 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11125 OF 2022 was lost in transit and to that effect obtained Police Clearance Certificate from Sajeenva Reddy Nagar Police Station on 17.01.2020. Thereafter, Passport Officer issued another passport bearing No.J3447558 dated 15.02.2011 to petitioner No.1 wherein it is clearly mentioned regarding passport bearing No.B0281815.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegations levelled against petitioner No.1 are vague and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are innocent and they are no way concerned with this case and the entire allegations levelled against them are false, baseless and concocted. As such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there is a clear mischief on behalf of the petitioners, as such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
8. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, it is to be noted that the case was registered against the petitioners at the instance of Passport Authority that there are discrepancies in the information furnished by petitioner 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11125 OF 2022 No.1. The main contention of petitioner No.1 is that in the year 1998 her first passport was issued but the same was not received by her or her parents. Later, in the year 1999, she applied for another passport and the same was lost in transit and obtained Police Clearance Certificate. Thereafter, she applied for another passport wherein it was clearly mentioned regarding the previous passport, which was lost in transit. Petitioner No.2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1 and they are no way concerned with the case. The another contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per Section 15 of the Passport Act, no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the Central Government or such officer or authority as may be authorized by the Government.
9. In the present case, there is no sanction from the Central Government to initiate the proceedings against the petitioners under Section 15 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Malcolm War Macleod vs. State of West Bengal 1, wherein in paragraph No.8 it is held as follows:
1
C.R.R.No.4057 of 2008, decided on 09.09.2010 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11125 OF 2022 "8. From the charge sheet it appears that the FIR was lodged on24.06.2008 by SI Jaydeep Banerjee which was endorsed in favour of P.K. Sarkar for investigation by OC N.S.CB.I. Airport PS being case No.43108 dated 24.06.2008. During investigation IO has examined the complainant and other witnesses including the accused and recorded their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then consulted with the IC N.S.C.B.I. Airport PS and according to his advice submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Section 420/468/471 IPC as well as under
Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967. Neither in the FIR nor in the charge sheet there is any whisper that the investigation has been made with the previous sanction of the Central Government. It has already been pointed above that under 15 of the Passport Act no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the Central Government or such officer or authority as may be authorised by the Government by order in writing in this behalf. In the FIR the SI Mr. Joydeep Baneerjee has not mentioned that he is authorized by the Central Government to lodge such complaint and in course of investigation no attempt has been made to obtain such sanction before filing of charge sheet. Considering this point of view, I hold that initiation of the instant proceedings without previous sanction of the Central Government constitutes a breach of Section15 of the Passport Act, 1967 and from this point of view also the instant proceeding is not sustainable in law."
10. In view of the above extracted portion, in the present case it is noticed that there is no sanction which vitiates the 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11125 OF 2022 proceedings, the allegations levelled against the petitioners are false and baseless and the same are liable to be quashed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.895 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri at Malkajgiri are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 08.04.2024 SAI