Ram Chander vs State (Govt. Of Nct, Delhi)
2013 Latest Caselaw 1599 Del

$~13
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CRL.M.C. 3833/2011

       RAM CHANDER                                           ..... Petitioner
                             Through:   Mr. Gobind Narayan, Advocate

                    versus

       STATE (Govt. of NCT, Delhi)                  ..... Respondent
                        Through: Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for State

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

                ORDER

% 09.04.2013

1. By this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks

quashing of the FIR No. 78/2011 registered under Section 420 IPC at

P.S. IGI Airport, New Delhi.

2. Addressing arguments on the present petition, counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in

the present case and the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is

that his passport was found re-stitched by an ordinary thread by the

immigration staff of Delhi Police. Counsel also submits that it is not

the case of the police that the passport of the petitioner was not genuine or any pages of the passport were found missing or there was any kind

of malice on the part of the petitioner in re-stitching of the same with

the help of an ordinary thread. Counsel also submits that on

9.7.2010, the petitioner was to reach Auckland (New Zealand) for the

purpose of doing diploma course in management and he was carrying

genuine and valid passport along with genuine study visa but he

was occluded by the Immigration Officer creating a suspicion over

the said passport and visa of the petitioner. Counsel also submits that

the petitioner is from a village background and taking advantage of

the same, the petitioner was told to pay bribe money to the

immigration officer to the tune of Rs.50,000/- otherwise he had

threatened to implicate him in a false case. Counsel also submits

that the immigration officer had taken the passport of the petitioner

in his custody and thereafter had registered this false case against the

petitioner on 9.2.2011. Counsel also submits that the police has also

registered a case under Section 420 IPC although there are no

allegations of any kind of cheating against the petitioner. Counsel

also submits that the petitioner is a young student of 23 years of age

and even if the allegations leveled by the police in the said FIR are taken to be correct no case either under Section 420 of IPC or under

Section 12 of the Passport Act is made out against the petitioner.

3. The present petition is strongly opposed by the counsel for the

State. Counsel submits that the petitioner has leveled false allegation

of corruption against the immigration officer without even naming

the said immigration officer. Counsel also submits that the passport

of the petitioner was found to be re-stitched with an ordinary thread

by Forgery Detection Cell of India Security Press and because of the re-

stitching of the said passport by the petitioner a clear case of violation

of Passport Act, 1967 is made out against the petitioner. Counsel

also submits that it is a settled legal position that the passport is a

document, issued by a national government, which certifies

the identity and nationality of its holder and the same being a

Government security document cannot be tampered with by the

holder of the passport. Counsel also submits that the petitioner had

also never made any complaint to any superior officer against the

alleged demand of bribe money by the immigration officer.

4. Based on the above submissions, counsel for the State submits that

the petitioner has been correctly implicated in the present case and the contentions raised by the petitioner in the present petition can only be

appreciated during the trial of the case.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have also perused the

relevant documents on record.

6. The original passport of the petitioner was seized by the immigration

officer at the IGI Airport, New Delhi on the night intervening

09.07.2010, when the petitioner was boarding the flight of Auckland

(New Zealand) for undertaking a diploma course in management studies.

The immigration officer found the passport of the petitioner re-stitched

and for the purpose of getting the said fact verified, the passport of the

petitioner was sent to the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh and

thereafter to India Security Press, Nasik.

7. The Security Press Nasik vide their confidential report dated

27.11.2010 forwarded the said passport of the petitioner to the Regional

Passport Office to cast their opinion on whether the original passport of

the petitioner was found to be re-stitched with ordinary thread. Such re-

stitching of the passport with ordinary thread was found in violation of Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passport Act, 1967 read with Rule 19 Schedule

V (6) of the Passport Rules, 1980 and accordingly, an FIR No.78/2011

was registered against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC, 1860 read

with Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 at PS IGI Airport, New Delhi.

8. For better appreciation, Section 12 (b) of the Passport Act, 1967 and

Rule 19 Schedule V (6) of the Passport Rules, 1980 are reproduced as

under:-

" Section 12 (1) (b) Knowingly furnishes any false information or suppress any material information with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document under this Act or without lawful authority alters or attempts to alter or causes to alter the entries made in a passport or travel document."

Rule 19 Schedule V (6) of the Passport Rules, 1980

"6. A Passport or travel document must not be altered or mutilated in any way nor any endorsement made in it by any person other than a duly authorized official."

9. On a bare scrutiny of Section 12 (b) of the Passport Act, 1967, it would

be manifest that the said section is not attracted to the facts of the present

case. It is not the case of the State that the petitioner had furnished any

false information or had suppressed any material information with a

view to obtain the passport or travel document or without lawful

authority had altered or attempted to alter or caused to alter the entries made in a passport or travel document. Rather the admitted case of the

State is that the passport of the petitioner was found to be original, valid

and genuine without there being any alteration or tampering of the same.

10. Utmost, the case of the petitioner can possibly fall under Rule 19

Schedule V (6) of the Passport Rules, 1980 which envisions that a

passport or travel document must not be altered or mutilated in any way

nor any endorsement made in it by any person other than a duly

authorized official. Austerely speaking, re-stitching the original passport

will not amount to altering the document itself, although the passport

document being a scrutiny document, re-stitching of the same cannot be

done by the holder of the same.

11. In any event of the matter, the Rule 19 Schedule V (6) of the

Passport Rules, 1980 is not punishable by itself and therefore,

appreciating the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that

no prima facie case of the commission of the offence under Section 12

of the Passport Act, 1967 is made out against the petitioner. The

ingredients of Section 420 IPC, 1860 are also not attracted to the facts of the present case.

12. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances

of the present case and also considering that the petitioner was

designated to travel abroad for the purpose of obtaining further

education, the issue should not be made to suffer any further. Hence,

this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in

keeping the said FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom alive any

further against the petitioner. Consequently, FIR No. 78/2011 registered

under Section 420 IPC at P.S. IGI Airport, New Delhi and criminal

proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

13. The present petition is disposed of accordingly.

                                                   KAILASH GAMBHIR, J

APRIL        09, 2013

mg/v