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,
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
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
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:
C.R.R.No.4057 of 2008, decided on 09.09.2010
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
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
