Delhi High Court
Rohit Kumar S/O Sh. Kuldip Singh ... vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 7 December, 2007
Author: V Gupta
Bench: V Gupta
JUDGMENT
V.B. Gupta, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 237/2006 under Section 420/468/471 IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act registered at P.S. I.G.I. Airport.
2. The brief facts of this case are that on the night of 15th and 16th May, 2006, at I.G.I. Airport, the petitioner was found traveling on forged U.S. Visa. On questioning, he revealed that he has paid a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- to an agent Sanjeev Sharma for obtaining forged U.S. Visa. Accordingly, the present case was registered against the petitioner.
3. It has been stated in the present petition that the petitioner has not committed any offence rather, he is a victim. After release on bail in this case, the petitioner lodged a complaint with S.S.P., Hoshiarpur, Punjab. On the basis of the complaint of the petitioner, an FIR was registered against the persons who has cheated the petitioner and his father to the tune of Rs. 18,00,000/- and since the petitioner is a victim in this case, the FIR in question should be quashed.
4. As per the allegations made in the FIR of this case, the petitioner was found to be traveling on forged visa for going to U.S. and admittedly the petitioner has paid Rs. 18,00,000/- for obtaining the forged U.S. Visa from the agent. So, admittedly, the petitioner is a party to the crime and now he cannot wash off his hands just by saying that he is a victim of the crime, when knowingly, he has paid a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- to the agent for obtaining a forged visa as admittedly, the petitioner never applied for any valid visa to U.S. Embassy in accordance with prescribed procedure.
5. The petitioner had adopted a shortcut in this case and unfortunately, he was caught at the airport itself while making use of the forged visa.
6. So, the allegations made in the FIR of the present case, discloses commissioning of cognizable offence by the petitioner and recently the Apex Court in Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi and Ors. III (2007) DLT (Crl.) 963 has laid down that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare case. It has been laid down that:
Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare case. It has been further laid down that for the purpose of finding out commission of cognizable office, High Court is only required to look into allegations made in the complaint or FIR and conclude whether prima facie offence is made out by the complainant in FIR or complaint or not.
7. After going through the FIR, prima facie, offences are made out against the petitioner. The case is at the initial stage. The plea taken up by the petitioner in the present petition is his defense which he can take before the trial court at the appropriate stage.
8. Under these circumstances, present petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.
