Shalini Mundra vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 12843 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 880/2021

Shalini Mundra D/o Shri Hemraj Mundra, Aged About 35 Years, Ward No. 29, Sector 05, Near Ganpati Plaza, Tehsil Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, Through Pp

2. Regional Passport Office Jaipur, J 14, Jhalana Institutional Area Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur 302051.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Bhushan Pareek on VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

Reserved on 10/08/2021 Pronounced on 17/08/2021

1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant

caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court,

for the safety of all concerned.

2. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"(i) It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court that this Criminal Misc. Petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be accepted and allowed and the impugned F.I.R. No.319 dated 15.06.2019 registered at PS Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(2 of 7) [CRLMP-880/2021]

(ii) Further, all subsequent proceedings arising out of above mentioned F.I.R. including warrant of arrest u/s 37 of Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 may also be quashed and set aside.

Any other relief, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem it fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the

petitioner submitted an application form in the year 2016 for

issuance of a Passport, which was entered as passport application

dated 15.09.2016, while annexing therewith a copy of her mark-

sheet of Class-Xth, which mark-sheet later on was found to be

forged, and thereafter, the impugned FIR was lodged against her

by the concerned passport authorities.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present

petitioner has been sought to be prosecuted even without

complying with the requirement of Section 15 of the Passports

Act, 1967 (for short, 'the Act'), which provides that no prosecution

shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence

under the Act without the previous sanction of the Central

Government or such officer or authority as may be authorized by

that Government by order in writing in this behalf, and thus, the

present petitioner cannot be prosecuted, in pursuance of the

impugned FIR, moreso in absence of any cheating or forgery on

her part. The said Section 15 reads as under:-

"15. Previous sanction of Central Government necessary.-- 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

(3 of 7) [CRLMP-880/2021]

authorised by that Government by order in writing in this behalf."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to

Section 12 of the Act, which reads as under:-

"12. Offences and penalties.--(1) Whoever--

(a) contravenes the provisions of section 3; or

(b) knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses 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; or

(c) fails to produce for inspection his passport or travel document (whether issued under this Act or not) when called upon to do so by the prescribed authority; or

(d) knowingly uses a passport or travel document issued to another person; or

(e) knowingly allows another person to use a passport or travel document issued to him; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term

which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both. (1A) Whoever, not being a citizen of India,--

(a) makes an application for a passport or obtains a passport by suppressing information about his nationality, or

(b) holds a forged passport or any travel document, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.

(2) Whoever abets any offence punishable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A)] shall, if the act

(4 of 7) [CRLMP-880/2021]

abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, be punishable with the punishment provided in that sub-section for that offence. (3) Whoever contravenes any condition of a passport or travel document or any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder for which no punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.

(4) Whoever, having been convicted of an offence under this Act, is again convicted of an offence under this Act shall be punishable with double the penalty provided for the latter offence.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

petitioner has appeared in her Class-Xth Examination, under the

belief given by certain persons that after passing the said

examination, she would be issued a valid mark-sheet therefor;

however, she was issued a fake mark-sheet of Class-Xth, which

the petitioner, only under the bona fide belief of the same being

genuine, submitted alongwith her passport application form.

Learned counsel thus, submitted that the petitioner has not

committed any cheating or forgery for obtaining the passport.

7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the

petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:

(a) Malcolm War Macleod Vs. State of West Bengal

(decided by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court), reported in

2011 3 CalHCN 124.

(b) Surinder Singh (Constable) No.280/CPF Vs. The

State of Haryana & Ors (decided by Hon'ble Punjab &

Haryana High Court), reported in 2012(4) RSJ 77.

(5 of 7) [CRLMP-880/2021]

(c) Mohammed Hussain Pangadan Vs. State of Kerala

(decided by Hon'ble Kerala High Court), reported in

2015(4) KLT 40.

(d) State of Gujarat Vs. Iliyasbhai Adambhai Vohra

(decided by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court), reported in

(2017) 176 AIC 294.

(e) Mohammad Yusuf Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.

Criminal Misc. Petition No.706/2017, decided by this

Court on 27.04.2017).

(f) Mary Vs. State of Kerala (Criminal Revision Petition

No.3265/2005, decided by Hon'ble Kerala High Court

on 25.01.2018).

(g) Sharankumar Vs. Sudhi Choudhary & Anr.

(Criminal Petition No.9441/2016, decided by Hon'ble

Karnataka High Court on 26.02.2019).

(h) Abdul Azeez Vs. State of Kerala (Crl.MC.

No.7330/2016, decided by Hon'ble Kerala High Court

on 13.11.2019).

(i) Kiran Kanta Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal

Misc. Application No.171/2014, decided by Hon'ble

Uttarakhand High Court on 15.11.2019).

(j) Shareer Vs. State of Kerala (Crl. MC No.6183/2019

(C), decided by Hon'ble Kerala High Court on

19.11.2019).

(k) Sri Mohammed Jahanjeer Vs. The State of

Telangana (Criminal Petition No.1563/2020, decided

by Hon'ble Telangana High Court on 10.03.2020).

(6 of 7) [CRLMP-880/2021]

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing

the misc. petition, submitted that prosecution sanction, as

provided for under Section 15 of the Act, is required only for the

purpose of the offences being made out under the Act of 1967 i.e.

the offences as defined under Section 12 of the Act, whereas in

the present case, the offences under the provisions of the Indian

Penal Code, which are independently sustainable, are being found

to be made out against the present petitioner.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

carefully examining the record and the facts of the case, alongwith

the precedent laws cited at Bar by learned counsel for the

petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the requirement of

obtaining prior sanction for prosecution under Section 15 of the

Act is only provided in respect of the cases, only where the

provisions of Section 12 of the Act have been violated.

10. Upon dealing particularly with Section 12(b) of the Act, this

Court finds that the offences punishable, as per the said provision

of the Act, are furnishing of false information or suppressing any

material information to obtain a passport or travel document,

whereas in the present case, it is mark-sheet of Class-Xth, which

has been forged, and thus, this case travels much beyond the

scope and ambit of Section 12 of the Act.

11. The aforementioned precedent laws cited on behalf of the

petitioner apply only in the cases, where the parameters of the

complaint lodged by the passport authority falls within the purview

of Section 12 of the Act, whereas in the present case, it is clearly

an offence of submitting a forged mark-sheet of Class-Xth, which

is much beyond the offence, as compared to the offences provided

under Section 12 of the Act.

(7 of 7) [CRLMP-880/2021]

12. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the aforementioned

precedent laws and protection as provided under Section 15 of the

Act, will not apply in the present case, as a clear and independent

case, in relation to the offence punishable under the provisions of

the Indian Penal Code, is made out against the present petitioner,

which is much beyond the purview of Section 12 of the Act.

Moreover, the petitioner has clearly admitted that when she

appeared in her Class-Xth Examination, she was duped by certain

persons, while giving her a belief that she would be having a valid

mark-sheet of Class Xth, whereas it was not a valid mark-sheet.

13. In view of the above, no case for making any interference by

this Court under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is

made out.

14. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

applications also stand dismissed.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)