Telangana High Court
Leon Christopher Emanuel, vs The State Of Telangana, on 1 October, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10165 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in
C.C.No.997 of 2022 pending on the file of XI-Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad. The offences
registered against the petitioner are under Sections 420 of
Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C') and under Section 12 (1) (b)
of Indian Passport Act, 1967.
2. The facts of the case are that on 14.08.2021 at 1900
hours, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the police
stating that her husband i.e., petitioner herein, obtained Police
Clearance Certificate which was cleared by Karkhana Police,
without proper verification, as a D.V.C. case is pending against
him in Bombay since 2018. Further, he has also given false
particulars to a public servant in Telangana and Indian High
Commission at Botswana while issuing a new passport. As
such, prayed to take necessary action against him.
3. Heard Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
there is bar under Section 15 of the Passport Act. The
investigating officer failed to contemplate the statutory
provisions of law i.e., prior sanction of Central Government is
necessary, as such, the offence under Section 12 (1) (b) of the
Passport Act, does not attract to the petitioner and the
allegation of obtaining passport by suppressing the fact is un-
sustainable and unreliable. For the purpose of relevancy,
Section 15 of the Passport Act, is extracted hereunder :
"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 authorized by that
Government by order in writing in this behalf."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment
of the Calcutta High Court in Malcolm War Macleod Vs State
of West Bengal in C.R.R.No.4057 of 2008 and the judgment of
High Court of Kerala in Crl.MC.No.4904 of 2013. He also relied
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vangala
Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs CBI 1, and judgment of this Court in
Venkata Siva Kumar Yadhanapudi Vs Union of India 2,
wherein it was observed that pending DVC is not a bar in
obtaining passport. As such, it is nothing but abuse of process
of law. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings
against the petitioner.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the said
contentions and prayed to dismiss this petition.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, it is seen that respondent No.2 filed a complaint
stating that petitioner herein obtained passport suppressing the
pendency of D.V.C. case. The main contention of petitioner
herein is that there is bar under Section 15 of the Passport Act,
that without prior sanction from the Central Government
cognizance cannot be taken. Admittedly, the record shows that
there is no prior sanction from the Central Government. In
1 2021 SCC online SC 3549
2 2024 SCC online TS 402
Crl.C.No.4904 of 2013, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam,
in paragraph No.4 observed as under :
"It seems that prior sanction of the Central
Government has not been obtained in the matter for launching
the prosecution against the petitioner. The offence under
Section 12 of the Passport Act is the only offence alleged in the
case. In such case, for want of sanction under Section 15 of
the Act, the prosecution is not legally sustainable. On that
ground alone, the prosecution proceedings are liable to be
quashed. Matters being so, all further proceedings in
C.C.No.599 of 2013 pending before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate's Court-III Kottayam, as against the petitioner,
based on Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.4 of 2013 of
the Manarcad Police Station, can be quashed."
8. In Malcolm War Macleod's case referred supra, the High
Court of Calcutta in paragraph No.8 observed as follows:
"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 Section 15 of the Passport
Act, 1967 and from this point of view also the instant
proceeding is not sustainable in law."
9. In the present case also there is no prior sanction from
the Central Government which is mandatory, in view of the
observations made in the above judgments. Further, as
observed by this Court in Venkata Siva Kumar Yadhanapudi's
case referred to supra 2, and the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu's case
referred to supra 1, pending D.V.C, is not a bar in obtaining
passport. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the
petitioner are not tenable and C.C.No.997 of 2022 is liable to be
quashed against the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.997 of 2022
pending on the file of XI-Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Secunderabad are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :01.10.2024
Rds
