Madras High Court
Amudha Dalphini vs The State on 9 September, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.19626 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl. O.P. No.19626 of 2021
and Crl.M.P. No.10714 of 2021
Amudha Dalphini .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State,
Rep. by Assistant Commissioner of Police,
CCB-1
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
2. Regional Passport Officer,
Rayala Towers,
No.2 and 3, IV Floor,
Old No.785, New NO.158,
Anna Salai, Chennai -2. ... Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to quash the Crime No.58/2021 on the file of the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB-1, Vepery, Chennai for offence
under Section 12 91) (b) of Passport Act, 1967 and 420 of Indian Penal
Code.
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19626 of 2021
For Petitioners : Ms. D. Sneha
for Mr.G.R.Hari
For Respondent-1: Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
2: Ms. Vaishali
for Mr.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Crime No.58/2021 on the file of the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, CCB-1, Vepery, Chennai
2. A complaint was given by the second respondent by stating
that the petitioner had applied for re-issuance of passport by correcting
her date of birth from 21.08.1977 to 21.05.1975. The birth certificate
produced by the petitioner had shown that her date of birth was
21.05.1975. When the genuineness of the birth certificate was tested, it
was found to be not genuine. On the basis of the above report, a case
has been registered by the first respondent police against the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19626 of 2021
for the offences under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 and
Section 420 IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a
genuine mistake in her earlier passport showing her date of birth as
21.08.1977; the said particulars were furnished by the petitioner's
father and hence the mistake had occurred; only for that reason the
petitioner had applied for re-issuance of passport by correcting her date
of birth.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that
the City Health Officer has sent a report dated 21.08.2018 by stating
that the birth certificate showing the date of birth as 21.05.1975 is not
genuine and hence the criminal case registered against the petitioner
has made out a prima facie case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19626 of 2021
5. It is to be noted that the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.
No.2296 of 2012 seeking the relief of declaration and consequently for
mandatory injunction directing the second respondent passport
authority to rectify the mistake in the birth certificate (i.e the date of
birth should be changed from 21.08.1977 to 21.05.1975). The said suit
was decreed as prayed for. It is to be noted that the second respondent,
though a party to the proceedings, has not chosen to challenge those
proceedings before the appropriate forum. The Civil Court has relied
on the date of birth of the petitioner found in her Birth Certificate,
SSLC mark sheet, +2 mark sheet and School Transfer Certificate and
satisfied that the date of birth of the petitioner should be 21.05.1975.
6. The above civil case has got disposed in the year 2013. The
present criminal case has been registered only on 21.04.2021. In the
interregnum the passport authority did not choose to challenge the
decree passed in O.S. No.2296 of 2012 on the file of XIV Assistant
Judge, Chennai. Until now, the second respondent had not challenged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19626 of 2021
the said judgment. After getting a binding degree from the Court, the
second respondent once again claims that the birth certificate produced
by the petitioner by showing her date of birth as 21.05.1975 is not
genuine.
7. Since the Civil Court, by its judgment in O.S. No.2296 of 2012
has settled the issue about the date of birth of the petitioner and suitable
directions have also been granted, there is no necessity for the second
respondent to once again scrutinize the birth certificate. The entries in
the Birth Certificate, school mark sheets and school Transfer Certificate
have already been subjected to the scrutiny of Civil Court and findings
have also been rendered. The second respondent who had failed to
challenge the above said judgment cannot file a criminal complaint
now and stretch the proceedings unnecessarily. Hence, I feel that it is
an appropriate case where this Court should exercise its power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19626 of 2021
8. In view of the above stated reasons, the Criminal Original
Petition is allowed and the case in Cr. No.58 of 2021 on the file of the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB-1, Vepery, Chennai is hereby
quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.09.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
bkn
To:
1.Assistant Commissioner of Police,
CCB-1
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19626 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J.,
bkn
CRL. O.P. No.19626 of 2021
09.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
