Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2013 DAILYLAW 2632 (DEL)

Ram Chander v. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi)

2013-04-09

Kailash Gambhir

body2013
Kailash Gambhir, J.;— 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. 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 restitching 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. 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 restitching 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. 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.