Allowed

C.Mohanadhas v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Apr 2014CRL OP(MD)/5709/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that the First Information Report alleging false information to obtain a passport was barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The court also noted the trivial nature of the offence and lack of proof of falsity.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report in Crime No.209 of 2013 dated 12.3.2013 was quashed and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

C.Mohanadhas Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.04.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)NO.5709 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2014

¶7

C.Mohandhas ...Petitioner

¶8

.vs.

¶9

1.The Inspector of Police, C3,S.S.Colony, Madurai.

¶10

2.Chellapandian, Passport Officer, Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai. ...Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the records and quash the First Information Report in Crime No.209 of 2013, dated 12.3.2013 on the file of the first respondent.

¶12

For Petitioner :M/s.V.Rajiv Rufus

¶13

For Respondent-1 :Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying this Court to call for the records and quash the First Information Report in Crime No.209 of 2013, dated 12.3.2013 on the file of the first respondent.

¶16

2.The Petitioner has obtained passport from the second respondent in the year 2009. To obtain such passport, the applicant seems to have submitted the Transfer Certificate in support of his date of birth issued by the Headmaster of Government High School, Manapacheri, Madurai. Those documents were referred to the issuing authorities to ascertain its genuineness. However, it was returned undelivered with remarks that there is no such address. Therefore a complaint was given by the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent under Section 12(1)(a) of the Passport Act,1967 stating that the Petitioner has filed a false information to obtain passport. Though occurrence took place on 31.7.2009, the complaint was given on 12.3.2013.The first respondent registered a case in Crime No.209 of 2013

¶17

¶18

under Section12(1)(a) of the Passport Act, 1957. The Present Petition is filed to quash the same.

¶19

3.The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that on the factual aspect, the second respondent has not proved that the documents submitted is false documents except stating that letter sent to the issuing authority is returned as no such adressee. According to the learned counsel, it does not mean that the document submitted is a false document. The learned counsel further submitted that taking cognizance of the offence is also barred by limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C as the offence under Section 12(1)(a) of the Passport Act attracts 2 years punishment and period of limitation is three years.

¶20

4.The learned counsel relied on a judgement reported in 1978 AIR 986 in the case of Surinder Mohan Vikal .vs. Ascharaj Lal Chopra and an order passed in a revision Petition bythis Court in an unreported judgement dated14.08.1981 in the case of Trichy Market Committee .vs. S.Savarridoss. The learned counsel had also relied on a circular of the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, wherein such offence of giving false information is stated as trivial and only fine can be imposed.

¶21

5.Heard the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side)and perused the materials available on record.

¶22

6.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) would submit that under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, any false information or false document, it is liable for prosecution and dealy is only with the intention and not that the transaction and Section 468 of Cr.P.C. will not attract. The Petitioner relied on Section 12(1)(b) reads as follows:

¶23

“12.Offences and Penalties:--(1) whoever--

¶24

(a)contravenes the provisions of Section 3; or

¶25

(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

¶26

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.”

¶27

7.Section 468 of Cr.P.C. appears to have taken cognizance after lapse of period of limitation and for offence is punishable for two years and three years is the limitation.

¶28

8.In the case reported in in 1978 AIR 986, it is held as follows:

¶29

“It would thus appear that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of sub-section (1) of Section 468 which prohibits every Court from taking cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-Section (2) after the expiry of the period of limitation. It is hardly necessary to say that statutes of limitation have legislative policy behind them. For https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ instance, they shut out belated and dormant claims in order to save the accused from unnecessary harassment. They also save the accused from the risk of having to fave trial at a time when his evidence might have been lost because of the delay on the part of the prosector. As has been stated, a bar to the taking of cognizance has been prescribed under

¶30

¶31

Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there is no reason why the appellant should not be entitled to it in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶32

9.It is also pertinent to point out the circular, the penalty for

¶33

offences under Passport Act, 1967, the Ministry of External Affairs has stated as follows:

¶34

S.No.	Nature	of	Amount	(IN	Rs) Amount	(IN	Rs.)
	Suppression information	of	for applicants	lite	rate for applica	illit nts	erate
XIII	If the app	licant	1000/-		500/-
	gives	wrong
	information regarding date of	his birth/
	place of	birth
	(Minor chang	es)

¶35

10.In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is barred by limitation and considering the trivial nature of the offence and taking into consideration the fact that there is no proof to show that the documents submitted is false and for all the reasons stated above, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the First Information Report in Crime No.209 of 2013, dated 12.3.2013 on the file of the first respondent stands quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

¶41