Allowed

Leon Christopher Emanuel, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Oct 2024CRLP/10165/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing petition against husband accused of obtaining a passport by suppressing a pending DVC case in Bombay and giving false particulars. The Court held that no prior sanction of the Central Government was obtained as mandated by Section 15 of the Passport Act, and pending DVC is not a bar to passport issuance.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioner in C.C.No.997 of 2022 quashed; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Leon Christopher Emanuel, Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITI ON NO: '10165 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Leon Christopher Emanuet,, S/o. Theodore Aloysius Emanuel Aoed 42 vears. Occ. !i1gct91^{E man^Group p^ermanentResidento1 . ptot No.t3,iourie-Viii"E.tri.} Gqbs North of Parklane, st.Gab_arone, Botswana. Africa. Temporary Resident at. - H.No. 213, Clarandale, lVludfort, Secunderabad

¶8

... Petitioner/Accused

¶9

AND

¶10

The HyderabadState^{of Telangana,Rep. by its Public prosecutor,High Courtat}

¶11

2 Alina Pooja l(inny,, Wo. Leon Christopher Emanuel, Age. 40 yrs, Occ. :lousewrte, .lemporarily^{Residing at. - H.No. plot No.154,FlaiNo.202,} Snnrlayam, New Vasavi Colony, Kakaguda, Kharkhana, SECUNDERABAD Permanent Resident at. -Kinhy Villa; H.No.D/ 120, Chembur Goathan Mumbai, Maharastra-40007'1

¶12

. .. Respondent No.2/ Complainant

¶13

Petition under section 528 of B.N.S.s. praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in c.c No. 9g7 of 2o22 on the file of the Court of the Xl Addl. Chief t\4etropolitan l/agistrate at Secunderabad.

¶14

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024

¶15

Petition under section 528 of B.N.S.s. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in c.c.No.997 of 2022 on the file of the the Court of the Xl Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri P vamsheedhar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10165 0F 2024

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2O23 (for short^,BNSS) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.997 ol 2022 pending on the file of Xl-Additional Chief Metropolitar Magistrate at Secunderabad. The offences registered against the petitioner are under Sections 42O of Indian Penal Code (for short'I.P.CJ and under Section 12 (1) (b) of Indian Passport Act, 1967 .

¶22

The facts of the case a-re that on 14.08.2O21 at 1900 hours, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the police stating that her husband i.e., petitioner herein, obtained police Clearance Certihcate which was cleared by Karkhala police, without proper verification, as a D.V.C. case is pending^qgainst him in Bombay since 2O18. 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.

¶23

¶24

i t

¶25

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.

¶26

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is bar under Section 15 of the Passport Act. The investigating ofhcer 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 :

¶27

"Previous sanction of Central Government necessarlr-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 ollicer or authority as may be authorized by that Government by order in writing in this behalf."

¶28

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.4O57 of 2OO8 and the judgment of High Court of Kerala in Crl.MC.No.4904 of 20i3. He also relied on the^judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vangala

¶29

Kasturi Raagacharyulu Vs CBI1, and judgment of this Court in Venkata Siva Kumar Yadhanapudi Vs Union of Indiaz, wherein it was observed that pending DVC is not a bar in obtaining passport. As such, it is nothing but abuse of process of 1aw. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶30

l,earned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the said contentions and prayed to dismiss this petition.

¶31

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

¶32

I 2021 SCC online SC 3549

¶33

2 2024 SCC online TS 402

¶34

¶35

: i a l i

¶36

Crl.C.No.4904 ol 2OI3, the High Court of Keraia at Ernakulam, in paragraph No.4 observed as under:

¶37

"It seems that pdor sanction oI 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. [n such case, for want of sanction under Section 15 of the Act, the prosecution is not legaily sustainable. On that ground a1one, 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 Coud-lII Kottayarn, as against the petitiorrer, based on Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.4 of 2013 of the Manarcad Police Station, can be quashed."

¶38

8. In Malcolm War Macleod's case referred supra, the High

¶39

Court of Calcutta in paragraph No.8 observed as follows:

¶40

"8. From the charge strcet it appears thrtt the I'IR uas lodged on24.06-2OO8 bA SI Jagdeep Banerjee uhich uqs en.dorsed in fauour of P.K. Sarkar for inuestigatiort bg OC iV. S. CB.L Airport PS being case No.43108 dated 24.06.2O0B. Duing inuestigation IO ha,s examined the complainant and other uitnesses including th,e accused qnd recorded their statement under Section 161 Cr-p.C- theft consulted with the IC N.S.C.B.L Airport PS and according to hts aduice submttted charge sheet against the accused persons under Section 420/468/471 IPC a"s tuell as under Section 12 of the passport Act, 1967. Neith.er in the FIR nor in the cltarge sheet there is ang whisper that tlte inuestigatton hcLs been made with the preuious sanction of tLrc Central Gouemment- It has atreadg been pointed aboue that under 75 of the passport Act no

¶41

¶42

t t

¶43

prosecution shall be tlstituted against ong person in respect of ang olfence under this Act tuithout the preuious sanction of the Central Gouemment or such officer or autharitA o-s mag be authortsed bg the Oouernment bg order in writing in this behatf. In the FIR tlrc SI Mr. Jogdeep Baneerjee ho,s not mentioned that h.e is authorized bg the Central Gouernment to lodge such compkTint and in course of inuestigation no attempt has been made to obtain such sanction before filing of cLwrge sheet. Cotrsideing this point of vietu, I hold that initiation of the instant proceedings uithout preuious sonction of the Centrol Gouentment cotlstitutes q breach of Section 15 of the pc.ssport Act, 1967 and from this point of uieu also the instont proceeding is not sustainable tn Laut."

¶44

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 Veirkata 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 petil ioner.

¶45

i 0. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.997 of 2022

¶46

¶47