Allowed

Minimol v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jul 2023Crl.MC/2661/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition to quash an FIR registered for passport violation. Citing prolonged investigation delay and lack of a Final Report, the court found that pendency impeded the petitioner's fundamental right to livelihood and travel abroad, especially as a mother.

What did the court decide?

Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.1710 of 2014 and all further proceedings in UN No.53/2019 are quashed.

Minimol Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
THURSDAY,THE20THDAYOFJULY2023/29THASHADHA,1945
CRL.MCNO.2661OF2023

¶3

AGAINSTCRIMENO.1710/2014OFSAKTHIKULANGARAPOLICESTATION
NOWPENDINGASUNNO.53/2019ONTHEFILESOFTHEJUDICIAL
MAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS-II,KOLLAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶4

MINIMOL
AGED45YEARS
D/OKUMARI,KOOTTITHARAPADINJATTATHIL,
SAKTHIKULANGARA,PIN–691581

¶5

BYADVSREERAJM.D.

¶6

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶7

1STATEOFKERALA
REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR,
HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,
PIN–682031

¶8

2STATIONHOUSEOFFICER,
SAKTHIKULANGARAPOLICESTATION,
KOLLAMDISTRICT,PIN–691581

¶9

3UNIONOFINDIA
REPRESENTEDBYSECRETARYTOMINISTRY
OFEXTERNALAFFAIRS,GOVERNMENTOFINDIA,
EBLOCK,CENTRALSECRETARIATNEWDELHI,
PIN-110001

¶10

SRI.VIPINNARAYAN,SR.PP,
SMT.MINIGOPINATHAN,FORDSGI

¶11

THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
20.07.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶12

Crl.M.C No.2661 of 2023

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner herein is a lady. She is arrayed as accused in Crime No.1710 of 2014 of the Sakthikulangara police station registered for the offenses punishable under Section 12(1)(b) of Indian Passport Act, 1962. Records reveal that the aforesaid crime was registered on 02.12.2014 on the allegation that the petitioner herein had secured a passport bearing No.1+5814746 on 28.7.2009 and thereafter, in violation of the provisions of the Passports Act, traveled abroad.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that before registering the crime, the petitioner was working as a housemaid in Dubai. It is also submitted that though the crime was registered on 02.12.2014, the police have not filed the final report. According to the learned counsel, the attempt made by the petitioner herein for getting viable employment abroad is defeated because of the pendency of the criminal proceedings. It is on these assertions that this petition is filed seeking to quash Annexure A1 FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶17

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation was conducted, and a UN report was submitted before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam, on 16.5.2019. In the report, it has been

¶18

Crl.M.C No.2661 of 2023

¶19

¶20

stated that though repeated requests were made to the FRRO to make documents available showing that the petitioner had traveled overseas through the Bombay Airport, no such documents were received. It is further submitted that as and when materials are obtained to substantiate the case of the prosecution, they shall reopen the investigation and, after completion of an investigation, file a suitable report before the learned Magistrate.

¶21

The learned DSGI submitted that at no point of time the Station House Officer has requested the FRRO for getting the documents with regard to the travel of the petitioner herein from Mumbai. It is also submitted that the records of travel are available with the Assistant Director, Central Foreigners Bureau.

¶22

I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶23

The records reveal that the crime was registered in the year 2014 on the premise that the petitioner had furnished false records to procure the passport. I find that the petitioner had approached the learned Magistrate and had filed C.M.P. No.1315/2021 in UN No.53/2019, and by order dated 01.11.2021, the petitioner was granted permission to travel abroad for a period of five years. Several other conditions were imposed by the learned Magistrate while allowing the request made by the petitioner.

¶24

Crl.M.C No.2661 of 2023

¶25

¶26

Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the pendency of the report, UN No.53/2019, will stand in the way of the petitioner in securing better employment overseas. In spite of the passage of a decade, the police have not been able to collect the materials linking the petitioner with the crime. Though the investigating officer has stated before this Court that attempts were made to collect the materials from the FRRO, the learned DSGI submitted that no such attempt was made. The petitioner's rights to travel abroad are being impeded by the pendency of the crime. She is a mother of two children and her contention is that the pendency of the UN report is impeding her ability to secure better employment as the reference to the crime in the order passed by the learned Magistrate deters her prospective employers from accommodating her in a better job. The Supreme Court in Sreenivas Gopal v. Arunachal Pradesh (1988 (4) SCC 36) held that quick justice is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This court in Oommen Koshy v. State of Kerala [1989 (2) KLT 384] held that keeping a person in suspended animation for more than 10 years without any cause cannot be within the spirit of the procedure established by law. If the final report had been laid before the court, the petitioner could have exhausted her

¶27

Crl.M.C No.2661 of 2023

¶28

¶29

remedies in accordance with law. More pertinently, the petitioner has no role to play on the failure of the investigating officer in submitting a positive report. In that view of the matter, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a good case for interference.

¶30

In view of the discussion above, this petition is allowed. Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.1710 of 2014 of the Sakthikulangara police station and all further proceedings in UN No.53/2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, II Kollam are quashed.

¶31

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶32

¶33

Crl.M.C No.2661 of 2023

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2661/2023

¶36

PETITIONERANNEXURES:

¶37

AnnexureA1CERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFIRDATED02.12.2014
AnnexureA2CERTIFIEDCOPYOFUNREPORTFILEDBYTHE
SAKTHIKULANGARAPOLICEDATED16.05.2019
AnnexureA3TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED1/11/2021OF
JUDICIALFIRSTCLASSMAGISTRATECOURTII,
KOLLAM
AnnexureA4RELEVANTPORTIONSOFTHEPASSPORTNOU5568673

Minimol v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minimol v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Prasanna.T.K Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Mubarak @ Mubarak Vs State of Kerala

Ravikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Jithin C.H. Vs State of Kerala

Parvathilakshmi Vs Usha B Nair